Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Hunter/Gather discussion Hunter/Gather discussion

05-19-2010 , 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTeeMe
Laying on the uncomfortable ground, eating a horrifically bland diet when you can eat, always being hot/cold/wet, being covered in creepy crawlies, every disease is life threatening from a fever to diarrhea, twisting your knee and knowing you're gonna starve to death, etc.
Sounds like my last camping trip.
05-19-2010 , 11:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montius
Actually there is evidence that hunter-gatherer societies enjoyed more leisure time than other societies (or at least comparable agrarian societies).
+1
05-19-2010 , 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobman0330
If you had the option between living 100,000 years ago and 4,000 years ago in an agricultural society, you would be a fool to choose 4,000. Obviously population levels were different, but I don't really see how that affects things.
I dunno about that.. Aren't we forgetting some differences in cognitive abilities, ie: homosapien v. homosapien sapien? I'd rather retain a greater degree of my cognitive abilities regardless of the living conditions..
05-20-2010 , 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tolbiny
Ok, here goes.

H-G individuals had lower rates of disease and lower rates of malnutrition than early agricultural societies according to Diamond. We know from very robust investigation that disease and malnutrition (especially anemia- which people living on a high carb, low protein diet are particularly susceptible to) lead to both lower fertility rates and higher infant mortality rates. Therefore we expect to see higher fertility and lower mortality rates in H-G societies. Instead what the fossil record appears to show us is that H-G societies had lower fertility rates. Diamond chooses to use his personal hypothesis to try to reconcile this apparent contradiction with his evidence relying more on statements about how things 'could work' more than on hard factual grounds. On the other hand there is a potential explanation for this situation- namely that due to the nature of the fossil record being biased against finding infant remains we can reconcile this contradiction by assuming a high (but unrecorded due to reasons mentioned) infant mortality which would lower the average health of a H-G individual down to levels that make them look not so great by comparison health wise. If H-Gs were malnourished at a higher rate but were much less likely to survive that malnourishment we have an excellent and relatively simple answer to this puzzle. In the absence of strong evidence I favor the simpler, more complete, answer.
This assumption fails to take into consideration the cultural economy of fertility. It isn't a simpler answer because it relies on an assumption the disregards a feature in every observed human society.

For instance, there are a few aspects of the Kahlahari Bushmen that offer us insight into this. The women do not start bearing children until they are 18 or 19 years old because their diet is very lean and not as rich in fat as others. This also means breast milk is scarce and causes births to be spaced further apart. Sure, these specifics are not necessarily applicable to all H-G societies of the past, but they provide us with insights into how fertility is affected by the realities and necessities of the cultural economy.
05-20-2010 , 01:18 AM
As Marshall Sahlins pointed out many years ago, there are two ways to happiness. Want a lot and get a lot; or want little and be satisfied with little. Not sure if either Sahlins' Stone Age Economics or Limited Wants, Unlimited Means edited by John Gowdy are still in print, but they're stimulating reads.
05-20-2010 , 08:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montius

EDIT: Also, that sounds like a pretty cool show. Know of anywhere I can watch online?
Not sure, google Tribe and Bruce Parry.

There was one episode that would provoke some interesting discussion.

He visited a tribe that lives on a very remote Pacific Island. They have communal property.

However one of their primary food sources (and sources of other useful materials) is Shark. Chinese traders were visiting Islands to trade stuff for parts of the Sharks anatomy, that is valuable in Chinese medicine.

Frictions were rising because some of the Islanders were keeping the proceeds of this trade privately.
02-20-2017 , 07:23 PM
LETTUCE discuss huntering and gathering imo
02-21-2017 , 03:52 AM
Vix hunting and gathering up old threads today.
02-21-2017 , 03:54 AM
A lot of disease comes from living in close proximity with a lot of humans and domesticated animals.
02-21-2017 , 03:55 AM
Some of the "twist your knee and you're dead" thinking comes from imagining hunter gatherers as individualists when they were really socialists.
02-21-2017 , 06:23 AM
Heh, the TV show I mention above has been repeated fairly recently.

Its hard to describe the massive lottery in conditions for the Tribes he stayed with.

Some are like totally Manyana guys, yea at some point we will go stare at a fat pig and catch a fruit as it falls from a tree, till then party time, and others are like skinny 1000 yard stare guys who are like yea we need to go on 60KM round trip hunt and maybe catch something once in 10 trips, till then we got these worms to eat.

Thing is even the latter tribe come across as way happier than large parts of industrial civilisation cohorts. They have an identity, a group function, shared values and a highly supportive communal structure.

The huge diversity of angst that westerners/developed world people have is not really present.
02-21-2017 , 06:39 AM
Also,narcotics:


      
m