I’m pretty sure most people work for money, not those things you mention.
And working for money to participate in organized society is objectively easier than going off grid.
And working for money to participate in organized society is objectively easier than going off grid.
I'm not saying working in early mills or factories was fun, but it beat the hell out of subsistence living so much that people opted for that to remaining in the hinterlands --this still is the case in modern China --that's why there are so many illegal internal migrants moving to city manufacturing sectors.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30500591
Modern people tend to never be aware of how many hunter gathers live long fit healthy lifestyles.
I know there are some !Kung who live alright as bushmen, in a mild climate, but it's not an easy life. Anyhow, more power to them if they remove all traces of modernity from their lives.
Logistic map (aka uncontrolled growth of population or overpopulation) is basically the fundamental source of suffering for all living things. Instead of planning for food, nature just overproduces demand and lets the weak starve to death and the average to just starve.
Rather than asking how it would support billions, we should ask how we are planning to not suffer in these numbers. Haven’t heard it regarding our current life style. Everyone tells us to reproduce more and pay more and more astronomic bills and loans, that’s it.
Personally, I would say a lifestyle that isn't just a thought experiment should answer one of
A) How do you support the current population of the planet like this?
B) How do you humanely reduce the population over time if you can't?
The world’s a very big place with a hugely diverse set of possible “valid” lifestyles (and limited ability to influence their reality). So what’s the big deal with proposing that maybe for some people a return to the land or to subsistence is a legitimate option?
A system with free agents is very prone to painting itself into a corner, it’s unstable by design. One of the issues that we have is that on the brink of catastrophe we are still asking ourselves whether the less carastrophic measures are ethical. But times of “we do what we want” end with the last decent square mile allocated for crops and housing.
We’re at such hard physical limits for the first time, so it will take a couple of world wars to figure out new rules, I guess.
often ?
Is that a first person observation, guesswork, or dubious inference on the basis of sparse evidence of occasional battles in some parts of the world?
The certitiude of comments such as yours is always intriguing.
For reference, in the region in question there's no archealogical evidence of any pitched battles in the Tanimi and genetic evidence supports people arriving in various parts of Australia and pretty much staying where they got to tens of thousands of years back until the 1800's at least.
Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2016-09-22/world-first-s...
There is ample evidence for homicide among hunters and gatherers, though. We don't like to hear it, because the Noble Savage myth is still going strong.
https://evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2015/06/08/no-hunter-gat...
Yeah, we don't have a comprehensive record of every tribe ever. But violence is attested pretty well among those that we have.