Better off as Hunter Gatherers?

Remember that a fair proportion of the hunter-gatherer peoples studied by anthropologists have been ones living in "marginal" lands not wanted by farmers or herders, whereas before farming & herding developed the hunter-gatherers would also have been able to occupy more productive lands with better climates.
 
Remember that a fair proportion of the hunter-gatherer peoples studied by anthropologists have been ones living in "marginal" lands not wanted by farmers or herders, whereas before farming & herding developed the hunter-gatherers would also have been able to occupy more productive lands with better climates.
We have no better evidence, anyone that claims to be able to actually know how societies were structured purely from material culture and just conveniently those utopian societies existed only in the past is trying to sell you a narrative.
 
The sheer amount of land needed per person. Just look at some large carnivores or apes, how much territory they need ...
The point is that beyond having better nutritional sources(which is still debatable based on who exactly is being compared here) we have no reason to believe they lived in resource abundant societies, humans without actually good contraceptives and modern population control systems will generally match the carrying capacity of their regions.
Now this carrying capacity was lower for hunter-gatherers compared to farmers but I don't see why the mechanism would go away, it's something we see in both animal and farming human populations.
 
Last edited:
If compared to neolithic farming H-G lifestyle was likely not worse. Main cause of death for men in these societes was violence (among neolithic tribes of New Guinea and Amazon Rainforest up to 60% of men die in inter-tribal wars, hunter-gatherers, like Inuit or Aboriginal Australians, were no better in that regard). Hunter-gatheress seemed to be more fit, but that is propably because only the fittest lived to adulthood, while deformed farmers' child has better chance to survive.
The greatest level of violence is seen at the agricultural transition through the early bronze age. This can be seen in both paleogenetic evidence and 'fossil' societies. Once you farm, you have to defend your territory instead of shifting away. That isn't to discount the high rates of violence found in some hunter-gatherer societies.
 
What isn't believable about that? Outside of like total Calorie load, the fast food diet is worse.
There is 0 reason to believe fast food makes people shorter, feel free to provide evidence of the contrary.
Also the statement implies that there is no genetic factor in human height which is obviously total bullshit, Japanese people are not 5-10 cm shorter than Europeans because of poor nutrition, in fact I see no reason to believe that nutrition plays any role in the difference.
 
The greatest level of violence is seen at the agricultural transition through the early bronze age. This can be seen in both paleogenetic evidence and 'fossil' societies. Once you farm, you have to defend your territory instead of shifting away. That isn't to discount the high rates of violence found in some hunter-gatherer societies.
Maybe absolute levels of violence increased, but not relative amounts.
 
There is 0 reason to believe fast food makes people shorter
I mean, I never said it did more it makes people unhealthily wider.
Also the statement implies that there is no genetic factor in human height which is obviously total bullshit, Japanese people are not 5-10 cm shorter than Europeans because of poor nutrition, in fact I see no reason to believe that nutrition plays any role in the difference.
It doesn't. Or what should we blame the average shorter heights of pre-industrial and post-industrial people on the most rapid genetic change in history? Or should we what about comparing heights of relatively related farming and hunter-gatherer people?
 
I mean, I never said it did more it makes people unhealthily wider.
Which has no bearing on height, which is the entire point.
It doesn't. Or what should we blame the average shorter heights of pre-industrial and post-industrial people on the most rapid genetic change in history?
Partially, maybe. It's certainly not a stretch, compare modern Korean or North Chinese and Japanese youth height while remembering that most of Japanese ancestry came from Kore after 1000-300 BCE. Or even height variation in northern Europe. Those weren't even isolated populations and yet you can find up to 5 centimer differences in modern populations.
Or should we what about comparing heights of relatively related farming and hunter-gatherer people?
The Bantus that replaced hunter-gatherer pigmies were taller than them, so I guess it depends. There are many short-statured HG populations after all as you can see here.
I've seen figures for the Saami also indicating they were small.

When we start excluding cases where a genetic turn-over happened I think we will start seeing that our sample size is smaller than you think and when we include cases were turnover happened then you can find many examples of small HGs living alongside similar-sized farmers or larger even.
 
Last edited:
What isn't believable about that? Outside of like total Calorie load, the fast food diet is worse.
That's the fault of people being either really lazy or extremely unhealthy, right now a person that devotes half an hour to cooking can have a diet far better than 90% of all people in history for an extremely affordable price, that usually people from the US are lazy doesn't change that the current modern diet can be extremely healthy and that all in all there isn't a current diet, since there is so much variety.

Also I adore that when this discussions pop up the people who adamantly believe that hunter gatherer would be better always avoid talking about how mental health would probably in medium be worse, the diet would be far more restricted to the point where most people would only eat one or two types of meat with maybe a fruit here or there, and that this same people always never say anything about how these supposedly superior societies would be far better for people with disabilities or who have debilitating weaknesses.

(This last section is not talking about the person that I am quoting)
 
Remember that a fair proportion of the hunter-gatherer peoples studied by anthropologists have been ones living in "marginal" lands not wanted by farmers or herders, whereas before farming & herding developed the hunter-gatherers would also have been able to occupy more productive lands with better climates.
Coastal California had densest population density for hunter-gatherers-it exceeded that achieved by primitive farmers,who used slash-and-burn agriculture. Lands of Chumash peple of Southern California had population density exceding 20 people per square mile (California was propably one of the most human-friendly areas on Earth). And that was likely reason why tribes of California had little inective to switch to farming.
 
What kept HG populations in check? If they were living so healthy why didn't their populations grow more?
They probably hit the carrying capacity of the land. The environment can only produce so much food for a population naturally. This limits the population an animal species can achieve in a given area.
 
Last edited:
Actually Gloss the lag of population growth rate in Hunter Gathers and Farmers might not be has big has you think.
 
Actually Gloss the lag of population growth rate in Hunter Gathers and Farmers might not be has big has you think.
I don't think this contradicts anything, in fact it supposrs my entire point, hunter-gatherers don't universally practice population control and they DO try to move into all untapped lands they can exploit, so the reason they stop growing is local resource scarcity just like it is for farmers, this means that there is hardly a reason to assume they were less affected by climatic swings or had particularly more food security.
 
If compared to neolithic farming H-G lifestyle was likely not worse. Main cause of death for men in these societes was violence (among neolithic tribes of New Guinea and Amazon Rainforest up to 60% of men die in inter-tribal wars, hunter-gatherers, like Inuit or Aboriginal Australians, were no better in that regard). Hunter-gatheress seemed to be more fit, but that is propably because only the fittest lived to adulthood, while deformed farmers' child has better chance to survive.
Any article to show so much violence in Hunter-gatherers societies ? The first evidence of "war" in archaeology is from upper paleolithic near neolithic 10.000 years ago, yesterday in the history of our species
 
They probably hit the carrying capacity of the land. The environment can only produce so much food for a population naturally. This limits the population an animal species can achieve in a given area.

Very much this. You're probably talking around 20 acres to sustain one person. At least. Wild plants just don't produce much compared to their cultivated counterparts. I do foraging as a hobby, just for fun. It takes a while, and for things like digging and cutting, I have advantages over any HG; High quality steel tools. Digging up roots (Around me, jersualem artichokes, wild potato vines, and a few others) is hard work with good steel tools. Without those, it's going to be worse. All that free time isn't going to be. Stone and wood equipment breaks, and it takes a long time to make more. As an HG, if I break my bow/spear, I have to make another one. If it breaks without getting me a kill, I go without meat until I get it replaced. If you are depending on that protein because it's winter, that's rough. So I think that free time isn't. It's going to be spent maintaining equipment, and maybe building replacements, since it is quite literally, life or death.
 
Top