Hunter-gatherers' work was play
petergray.substack.com
petergray.substack.com
Now, living life is what you do with about 5-15% of your time. The rest is work/red tape/...
1. Utter bullshit - completely useless to everyone; unjustifiable.
2. Actively evil - work that may be respected in society but is killing the world. Suits with BMWs selling weapons, insurance, oil, corporate tax loopholes etc.
3. Honest, but with most profits funneled upward, creating an ever more unequal society.
Even artists, musicians, beadmakers etc are forced to do grisly hustly things to survive - the fun gets sucked out of it for most. Our society is deathly ill.
Isn't part of what you're romanticizing of these traditional societies the utterly useless shit they might do with some of their time? Our work pays because someone values it, that is tautological.
You say that as if it helps your point?
I'm talking about "bullshit jobs" as in those described in the book 'Bullshit Jobs' by Graeber. Think Wally from Dilbert; sinecures without the dignity. Here:
> Bullshit Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that postulates the existence of meaningless jobs and analyzes their societal harm. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless and becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth. Graeber describes five types of meaningless jobs, in which workers pretend their role is not as pointless or harmful as they know it to be: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters. He argues that the association of labor with virtuous suffering is recent in human history and proposes unions and universal basic income as a potential solution.
Because, as sad as it is sometimes, in a capitalist society as long as someone pays for job being done, that job holds some value. Even if the people doing it fail to see that sometimes. If you care about some greater meaning ij your job, otherwise if it pays the bills, gets food on the table and, ideally, provides some financial stability, tue job actually provides a ton of value to thw person holding it, regardless if someone classifies it as a BS job or not. By the way, being to conplain about the metaphysical nature and philosophocal meaning of a day job is one of the highest privileges a person can have.
Value to the psychopathic dictator buying billions in weapons for his country is not the same thing as value to society.
Value to Exxon is not the same thing as value to every living creature on the planet.
What Graeber did was look at the net balance. I recommend you look more into it, because your interpretation of what he and I are saying is way off.
> By the way, being to conplain about the metaphysical nature and philosophocal meaning of a day job is one of the highest privileges a person can have.
Did your boss tell you that? Look at a graph of productivy versus wages over the last 50 years. We should be working 15 hours a week, like our prehistoric ancestors did.
We're killing the planet. Thousands of species are being lost. Infinite growth is a lie that is literally going to kill us. It has to stop. This isn't metaphysical or philosophical, it's life and death.
And no, nothing we do in the Western World, or the vast majority, is life and death. Theat is reserved for people suffering war, civil or otherwise, famine and rampant crime. Or people suffering through deregulated, unconstraint capitalism (which, I know, applies to people in the US for example, people that don't hold jobs that make up the majority of HN users so). So yes, this whole BS job thing is, IMHO, highly dubious.
Edit: Our pre-historic ancestors worked more than 15 hours, and they faced constant death by stuff we don't even blink about anymore. If Graebers counter point to modern office work, aka BS jobs, is pre-historic hunter-gatherer lifestyle this whole thing gets even more rediciulous. Fun fact, no hunter gatherer could earn a living writing books about other peoples societies and lives.
Yes.
Spend a day endlessly walking (roaming), searching in the forest for berries, mushrooms etc., doing hand-to-hand combat, hunting...
Spend a day in front of a computer.
Which one do you think will end in a feeling of happiness?
> Spend a day endlessly walking (roaming)
We can already do that at leisure, but most would not care to go a whole day (let alone every day) trudging around by necessity.
> searching in the forest for berries, mushrooms etc
You seem to be framing the search for food as a low-stakes endeavor.
> doing hand-to-hand combat
Between tribes (or even within your own), it can easily be more fatal than that.
Not only are you worried about calories, you're also concerned about not being outright murdered.
We can do that at best 2/7 days a week. In reality, modern life forces us to dedicate even less time to that.
I've done that many times. The feeling at the end of the day is always unlike any other. Wouldn't swap those experiences for anything else.
> You seem to be framing the search for food as a low-stakes endeavor.
Have you ever picked mushrooms? Do you know how little time it takes to get enough mushrooms for weeks to come? And then how much meat there is in a deer?
I agree that the risk of being murdered is higher. Although I think you overestimate the frequency of encounters. There weren't a lot of people back then on Earth. I also don't think this decreases happiness all that much. The slow senseless willowing away in an office everyday seems like a much less happy existence, even if it's a longer one.
That's ultimately a choice. Nobody is making you work, however, if you want a certain standard of living and a location it's one way to raise the funds to do so.
Personally, I choose to work 9-5 and live comfortably, safely and predictably, and I don't much care for long walks or whatever.
And there are no do overs.
If you break your leg, you’re dead
If you have a tooth infection, hope it doesn’t spread to your blood
if you get attacked by a wild animal, hope you can survive your wounds
If someone stronger comes and rapes you or your loved ones, maybe you can gather your buddies together for a revenge attack.
You can't be serious.
Hand to hand combat?
Just because you're depressed doesn't mean you have to bend reality to pretend "hunter gatherers had it best".
Hell, no one is forcing you to use work with a computer. There's many avenues to do a more "in line with nature life".
But I suspect you want your internet and amenities and all that jazz.
Notwithstanding, creating tools and arranging supplies is work. But the banality of this is that people spend plenty of time socializing at work today, in office or elsewhere. It's not like we stopped doing that. Are we going to start putting double quotes around the "work" that we do because of idle chat?
Work is good for us. Some jobs are just not as good as others.
I have another comment in this thread giving examples of how modern and ancient foragers differ.
One contributing factor to the play-like quality of hunter-gatherer work is that the work was not excessive. According to several quantitative studies, hunter-gatherers typically devoted about 20 hours per week to hunting or gathering and another 10 to 20 hours to chores at the campsite, such as food processing and making or mending tools (e.g. Lee, 1972; Sahlins, 1972 ). All in all, the research suggests, hunter-gatherer adults spent an average of 30 to 40 hours per week on all subsistence-related activities combined, which is considerably less than the workweek of the typical modern American, if the American’s 40 or more hours of paid employment is added to the hours spent on domestic chores.
One anthropologist, Marshall Sahlins (1972), famously characterized hunter-gatherer societies collectively as “the original affluent society.” An affluent society, by Sahlins’s definition, is one in which “people’s material wants are easily satisfied.” Hunter-gatherers were affluent not because they had so much, but because they wanted so little. They could provide for those wants with relatively little work, and, as a result, had lots of free time, which they spent, according to one observer of the Ju/’hoansi (Shostak, 1981), at such activities as “singing and composing songs, playing musical instruments, sewing intricate bead designs, telling stories, playing games, visiting, or just lying around and resting.”
Those are not the big gotchas you think they are. They are luxuries that only have value in the context of our western society, but don't intrinsically.
Think about it.
1. Office -- if you live in a nice climate, a climate controlled building is not much of a draw, in fact hanging out outside most of the time is more fun 2. Grocery store -- not much of a need for this if you can get all your food from the nature around your home 3. Dentist -- this is mostly to solve problems of civilization. Eating lots of grains, especially refined ones and refined sugars, leads to cavities. The causes of cavities mostly got introduced to our diet when grain was adopted 10000 years ago, and again in the mid 20th century with the advent of ultra processed food.
What else are you going to list? A car that you don't need in a walkable village?
Then there's healthcare. Most healthcare in the west today deals with lifestyle diseases caused by modern processed food, obesity, etc.
Then there's infectious diseases-- again mostly an urban problem, really starts taking off when agriculture and sedentism began 10000 years ago. Lot of living packed together in close proximity with plenty of animals.
Admittedly advanced healthcare for accidents and other freak health conditions other than modern obesity or infectious diseases, would be an undeniable luxury. But it really represents a small percentage of health care services, both these days and in the past.
I don't know, I personally like all of those things. Especially since I wouldn't be around anymore without them, neither would be my wife or my son. There is nothing romantic about a constant struggle for survival.
Just like the idea of the noble savage is wrong and hard to get rid of, so is this idea. It was never a constant struggle for survival. Depending where the tribe lived, there were indeed times of hardship, like winter or draught. Or war. And hunting some animals is and was dangerous - but so is driving with a car and wars we also still got. Oh and times of hardship are still a thing: "828 million people were affected by hunger in 2021".
But most of the time, it was lots of free time in a pleaseant environment without toxins and plastic garbage and fresh air among your trusted friends. It might have been cold at night, but the more you enjoyed the sun at day. And nothing tastes as good as self hunted meat, when you are hungry. This is the reason, why this archaic livestyle is romanticised - and our genes were optimized for it - not for the air conditioned office living.
For example, for some weird reason you are obsessed with dentists. Read this then: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oral-mystery-are-....
Cavities were probably rare before agriculture.
Same goes for antibiotics -- infections were a lot rarer before agriculture concentrated much larger population densities AND put them next to birds to catch respiratory illnesses from. Population density was basically a health hazard from 10,000 years ago to really, really recently, when modern plumbing finally solved it once and for all.
Finally, humanity arose in an area where cold was not a major issue. There are still plenty of areas like that.
And of course, food shortages historically are almost always associated with agriculture -- it's not surprising that intensively cultivating land to force it to sustain a much larger population would also be much more precarious. How could you possibly have a shortage if there's 10 or 100 times as many calories available in the area as are needed? It's in agriculture, where you only grow about what you need, because you allow the population to reach the maximum that can be supported, and force a large portion of them to work hard all their days to support as big an army as possible to conquer more land and repeat the cycle.... yeah, you become very vulnerable to small problems.
It seems like a lot of the problems of modernity are scaling problems -- problems you only run into when you insist on a much higher population density. We have been busily solving them for millenia, and by today, yeah, I'd pick today over 10,000 years ago. But don't kid yourself. There were plenty of generations in the 1300s who would have loved to trade places with hunter gatherers in a rich habitat with a low population density. This is the subtlety you are missing.
It seems the opposite: toil makes us human. Our inability to accept what can be foraged has pushed us into working.
I always took this to mean precisely what you said. "From the sweat of your brow," you eat because you chose to define for yourself "good and evil" with respect to nature's provisions.
I like to connect it with Douglas Adams' answer to the meaning of life from Hitchhiker's Guide: 42. The number itself is shaped like a human bent on their knees toiling in a field.
It's more that foraging limits population size, and when people have to compete for resources they end up killing or starving each other. Humans have a drive to grow and reproduce, and they have been more successful by working together, then by industrializing (e.g. agriculture). Because they got so good at it, one person could do the work to feed nine others, meaning the other nine didn't need to work in food production anymore and could do other things.
(oversimplified, you know what I mean)
Everything's been abstracted away to things-exchanged-for-money though, nobody needs to forage or build their own homes anymore, just fork over cash and it's there. Getting said cash, there's myriad ways to do so and we keep inventing new ones, like... recording oneself queueing up at Disney World, or dressing up in a maid outfit and doing NPC emotes for money.
I believe it was in here, its a quick interesting read in any case.
http://public.gettysburg.edu/~dperry/Class%20Readings%20Scan...
I'm sure the people invented agriculture didn't think of it as a mistake. It's not like they decided that they liked eating cultivated grass seeds more than wild nuts and mammoth steaks. They did so because that's what they had available.
> which in turn forces their neighbors to do the same to survive
Until gunpowder, tribal societies were at least a strong as their hierarchical contemporaries. The Huns destroyed the Roman Empire and Mongols conquered China.
Also, sharing of work was already a thing back than: hunters hunted, others went gathering, again others built tools...
Damn it, and I swore I wouldn't read stuff from substack again...
What you described is a pop-culture idea of pre-history, nothing like what the actual research and literature shows.
I suggest you start with Claude Lévi-Strauss' but that's only if you're interested in spending years learning, The Dawn of Everything is more recent and more accessible most likely.
Edit: There is archaelogical evidence from the stone age of shared work, namely in the form quarries in which the stone for the stone tools, axes, spear and arrow tips and the like, have been collected.
Pardon my word play on applying the word "play" to a society that constantly faced severe consequences of literal hunger...
Perhaps we could all spend less time generating empty rhetoric online and more time engaged in what we claim to be via logic, our real concerns
It feels really disingenuous when all the pearl clutching office workers go home to video games not a soup kitchen. Spend their weekends hiking not nursing the sick, fixing poorer people’s homes.
Modern day infantilized office worker crowd is the most off putting group of people I’ve ever encountered.
- Agriculture: 10,000 years ago - Hunter-gatherers: 200,000 years ago
And yes, that is a constant threat for the few true hunter-hatherer societies still left. Or why do you think they are so few in number? Hint, it is not an abundance of food.
it was not an easy life, for sure. but, "constant malnutrition" is also incorrect.
Then it wasn't play.
And now we're bringing that back with the lack of money causing the exact same thing, though IMO it's more offensive because the food needed to resolve the problem is literally right in front of the starving people, they just can't have it because they have earned insufficient value credit.
Or, if they have enough for it, they can have nutrient-void shaped corn "food" that their bodies can't process and will make them fat while also simultaneously not actually sustaining them and leaving them even worse off by some measures.
it also suggests that we in modern society are basically domesticated/in a zoo compared with our hunter-gatherer ancestors, which doesn't really sound like the better option to me
No, but struggle is.
Similarly in hunter gatherer societies you don't see many malnourished individuals, you see graves.
Missionaries and colonisers, at least that was the case in this part of the world.
Before M&C hunter-gatherers were everywhere: https://mgnsw.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/map_col_high...
Afterwards, not so much.
Native - "What, we're just healthy"
carry on.
That's the wrong part. I believe there's no known history of famine in hunter-gatherers. That only really became a thing with agriculture.
Hunter-gatherer populations were small; there was plenty of food generally speaking. Which is why relatively so little time had to be spent acquiring it, in comparison with the back-breaking worth of agriculture.
Of course, once agriculture started using up all the land that was previously being used for hunting and gathering, well then hunting and gathering was no longer viable. But that was something new with the introduction of agriculture.
"Here, we analyse famine frequency and severity in a large cross-cultural database, in order to explore relationships between subsistence and famine risk. This is the first study to report that, if we control for habitat quality, hunter–gatherers actually had significantly less -- not more -- famine than other subsistence modes."
Violence has been attested to in many of the remains that made it to modern people for study.
Division of labor in hunter gatherers is the only real way to explain Gobekli.
Contemporary evidence puts figures of about 25% of Hunter gatherers men dying violently and 15% of women and children: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/evan.21446
"Small- and medium-scale collective violence, in the form of confrontations between neighboring groups, may be as old as humankind [e.g.,1, 2]. By contrast, larger-scale organized and sanctioned lethal violence between sociopolitical groups (i.e., warfare), seems to be associated with certain socio-economic conditions that generally accompanied the shift to a farming economy,3 such as higher population densities and greater degrees of sedentism4, 5, in parallel to the increasing importance of resource ownership and property that led to the concentration of resources and power [e.g.,6, 7]."
[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-43026-9
The references above:
1. Fry, D. P. Cooperation for survival: Creating a global peace system. In War, Peace and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views (ed. Fry, D. P.) 543–558 (Oxford University Press, 2013).
2. Kim, N. C. & Kissel, M. Emergent Warfare in Our Evolutionary Past (Routledge, 2018).
3. Fibiger, L., Ahlström, T., Meyer, C. & Smith, M. Conflict, violence and warfare among early farmers in Northwestern Europe. PNAS 120(4), e2209481119 (2023).
4. Ferguson, R. B. Archaeology, cultural anthropology, and the origins and intensifications of war. In The Archaeology of Warfare: Prehistories of Raiding and Conquest (eds Arkush, E. & Allen, M.) 469–523 (University Press of Florida, 2006).
5. Fry, D. P. & Soderberg, P. Lethal aggression in mobile forager bands and implications for the origins of war. Science 341, 270–273 (2013).
6. Golitko, M. LBK Realpolitik: An Archaeometric Study of Conflict and Social Structure in the Belgian Early Neolithic (Archaeo Press, 2015).
7. Bogaard, A., Fochesato, M. & Bowles, S. The farming-inequality nexus: New insights from ancient Western Eurasia. Antiquity 93(371), 1129–1143 (2019).
8. Chenal, F., Perrin, B., Barrand-Emam, H. & Boulestin, B. A farewell to arms: a deposit of human limbs and bodies at Bergheim, France, c. 4000 BC. Antiquity 89, 1313–1330 (2015).
Which is more violent? 10 people killed out of a tribe of 100? Or 100 people being killed out of a city state of 10,000 people? The latter is 10x more violent in raw numbers, but it's a lower rate of violent death.
Yes, agricultural societies had larger populations and had the ability to organize larger armies than hunter gatherers. That's not doubted by anthropologists or historians. The point is that the small scale hunter gatherers violence was still more violent proportional to the population than warfare in agricultural societies.
You’re talking about brief intermittent literal “sticks and stones” based “warfare.”
The entire transition into the neolithic was based on violent and persistent coercive usurpation of land and resources.
So what was intermittent became persistent and over arching. For example, slavery is a nonstop, coercive warfare condition.
Further warfare itself became larger scale, bloodier and more impactful on your average citizen, with entire populations killed as opposed to people here and there in select group of class.
I can tell you that the brutality of modern wars, and when I talk about modern, I’m talking about Rwanda, World War II, the Japanese invasion in China etc…
These are unmatched in pre-agricultural periods if for no other reason than the technology and depravity of concept (copper bulls are uniquely terrifying creations of pain) didn’t exist yet.
So neither the scope, type, nor scale of persistent warfare will ever match the period 0-2000AD
My whole point (and the point of the body of research cited above), is that this "brief intermittent" warfare was, proportionally, more lethal than both agricultural and industrialized warfare.
Again, which is deadlier: a group of 10 people killed out of a society of 100 people. Or a group of 100 people killed out of a society of 100,000 people? Yes, warfare with literal sticks and stones kills fewer people than organized agricultural armies. But pre-agricultural populations were so much smaller that the proportion of people killed violently was larger than in agricultural societies.
> For example, slavery is a nonstop, coercive warfare condition.
About a quarter of hunter-gatherer societies practices hereditary slavery [1], so this is also applicable to hunter gatherers.
>These are unmatched in pre-agricultural periods if for no other reason than the technology and depravity of concept (copper bulls are uniquely terrifying creations of pain) didn’t exist yet.
They were unmatched in absolute terms because populations of agricultural societies were way larger than hunter gatherers. Again, in proportional terms, pre-agricultural societies were substantially more violent.
The takes you're describing here were popular from the 1950s through around the 1970s, and it's easy to see why the "noble savage" perspective was compelling: If humankind was inherently good and peaceful, and it was society that made humanity into violent beings then we could undo these changes. But after evidence about pre-agricultural violence became more clear, this view has become a lot less popular outside of activist academics. It's sobering to realize that the 20th century was the most peaceful century in human existence so far, but that's the academic consensus.
I also disagree with your calculus. 1 million deaths is worse than 10 irrespective of the overall denominator.
Even if I granted your hypothesis, there are more people pervasively living under coercive threat of death than any other time in history.
However it is my claim that pervasive violence was caused by QME via the creation of domination based systems. You can read my thesis here:
https://kemendo.com/Myth-of-Scarcity.html
So far every expert in this field that reads it thinks it is likely correct.
To wit, Riane Eisler read this and asked me to edit and submit the IJPS so I expect (hope) that it will take off from there and real anthropologists can test the hypothesis further to give it more power.
Your thesis focuses almost entirely on resource scarcity, not the prevalence of violence.
> However it is my claim that pervasive violence was caused by QME via the creation of domination based systems. You can read my thesis here:
And your claim has a massive hole in its logic: Proportionally (that is, how many people out of 1000 died violently) violence decreased with the advent of agriculture, not increased. The violence that did exist was larger in scale but so were populations. Violence became less pervasive with the advent of agriculture, not more. Your claims are based on the false premise that agricultural societies were more violent than hunter-gatherer societies.
The idea that violence was less pervasive in pre-agricultural societies was the popular view (the Rousseauan view, if you've read the literature) for a while up until the 1970s. But it is pretty firmly contradicted by the available evidence we have today. Both archaeological and case studies of existing hunter gatherer populations show rates of violence substantially larger than both agricultural societies, and industrial societies - on the order of 5-10x more violent than the 20th century despite two world wars. You can still find academics that insist on the Rousseauan views on hunter-gatherers, because they've used that assumption as the foundation for a large body of their work. But that doesn't make it true.
Look at all the references I gave you, so unless you wanna bring references then I’m done
> In any case, the rate is clearly elevated compared to overall crude prevalence rates of individuals with unhealed trauma estimated for the European Neolithic, which are on the order of 2–5%.
To recap:
Hunter-gatherers: 10-20% rate of people die violent deaths.
Agriculturalists: 2-5%
Industrialized societies: 1-2%, maybe even under 1%
See War In Human Civilization by Azar Gat for a detailed explanation of the shift in warfare between hunter gatherers, agriculturalists, and industrial societies. The proportion of people who died violent deaths was way higher in hunter gatherer societies, than in agricultural societies, which was itself in turn higher than industrialized societies. Over time warfare grew larger, but populations grew larger, faster.
I saw that paragraph with a ton of endnotes, but it didn't even engage with the core point: That the rate of violence was larger in hunter gatherer societies than in agricultural societies.
> Small- and medium-scale collective violence, in the form of confrontations between neighboring groups, may be as old as humankind [e.g.,1, 2]. By contrast, larger-scale organized and sanctioned lethal violence between sociopolitical groups (i.e., warfare), seems to be associated with certain socio-economic conditions that generally accompanied the shift to a farming economy,3 such as higher population densities and greater degrees of sedentism4, 5, in parallel to the increasing importance of resource ownership and property that led to the concentration of resources and power
Again it doesn't matter if the warfare grows in scale if the population grows even larger. What percentage of hunter gatherers dies violently at the hands of other humans? What percentage of agriculturalists died at the hands of other humans? This question isn't even touched on here. Again, if all you're trying to say is that warfare grew in scale in agricultural societies absolutely yes we agree! But the population grew even larger, and thus the overall rate of violence went down.
Again which is deadlier: a group of 10 people killed out of a society of 100 people. Or a group of 100 people killed out of a society of 100,000 people? The reason why I keep asking you this, is because if all you're trying to claim is that warfare grew larger and more organized in agricultural societies, but overall violent mortality went down then we have no disagreement. But if your claim is that people are less likely to die violently in hunter-gatherer societies than in agricultural societies, then no, that's not what the existing consensus is.
When I lived in the Yukon working as a Software Engineer I got into moose and bison hunting, I help friends build off-grid log cabin houses, I harvested wild berries, caught a freezer full of salmon every year and tried to live the "homestead" life as much as possible. I packed these adventures into weekends and time off.
These activities are physically demanding, cold and arduous. They were also some of the most enjoyable experiences of my life, and they are extremely strong memories that I often talk about and long for.
There is something about working for my own survival that is way, way more deeply satisfying than simply going to work to earn money to pay for my survival.
I wrote about my first ever moose hunting experience here: http://theroadchoseme.com/yukon-moose-hunting
Salmon fishing always involved grizzlies: http://theroadchoseme.com/salmon-fishing-with-bears-in-haine...
This doesn't mean HG work was play or that they had it better than you.
It just means that you love that type of thing. Same as many people love different sports or physical activities and nature experiences. Specially in contrast with dense populated towns/cities.
There's a difference between larping survival and having a real net and having absolutely no choice. Adrenaline can be fun but life or death constantly is absolutely different.
Of course it doesn't, and at no point did I remotely say anything like HG people had it better than me.
I was simply offering my life experiences that I find working for my own survival in our modern world to be much more enjoyable than going to work to earn money to pay for that survival.
Edit: Nor do they have sponsors and the financial means to build multiple overland jeeps and go travelling around the world for fun.
Often hunter gatherer societies practiced polygyny. Women were mainly valued for their ability to bear children. Women were often seen as a possession - first to their fathers who would sell them (bride price) to their husbands. Often there was no consent.
In addition, the modern states that these hunter gatherer societies are a part of don’t allow them to practice unrestricted warfare quite like they used to. So bands can’t go around killing all the males and taking the conquered tribe’s women and supplies. Because of this, looking at hunter gatherer societies that exist now is not necessarily reflective of how it actually was.
Gathering nuts is not as much fun when you have a infected foot and an infected tooth.
Of course Peter finds play in everything because that's his frame of looking at things.
The entire thing is a bit of a joke in how simplistic and fallacious it is.
Work is not play because it's unpleasant but the HG work is play because it's fun (not much, it's social, is challenging/not routine/boring and it's optional). It has to deliberately dismiss the need of survival as "well, but they were many so some could avoid working for a month and all would be good " so the reward (food for survival) was not the goal and the goal was play.
If there's an abundance of resources that allow you to survive and you don't have a high demand, then you'll have less stress than in other scenario. How is that not Economy 101?
There's this fetichism for "the simple life" from people that, I'd conjecture, clearly don't like theirs that much and project it unto others, where they get surprised at "those basic people" having skills, proficiency and actual culture and the capacity to be happy. How can they be happy without competing for a Tesla to make the neighbour jealous, seems to be the silly type of thinking. One of "ignorance is bliss".
Extremely poor article in every sense. He should read more or actually engage in anthropology. Surveys don't cut it, I'm afraid.
The cherry on top is: "machines should work for us, I don't want to have to produce the drivel for my work, please someone release me from my 'toil' so I can just drink wine with my friends."
Secondly, the whole point of being a nomadic forager is that you move. If whatever region you're in runs out of food, you leave to somewhere with more. The pastoral version of this is called transhumance. It's been made more difficult in the modern era, so we see much greater reliance on local productivity today.
There was constant foraging occurring, but modern foragers definitely don't believe themselves to be on the edge of starvation and they spend enough time socializing around camp with each other that they could easily spend foraging more food if they saw a need to.
The user you replied to didn't imply they were, only that constantly being on the move was necessary.