Better off as Hunter Gatherers?

[Crazy Boris]

Would we be healthier?

Certainly not. I like being able to not die from kidney stones and uncooked meat. It’s not like modern humans are a picture of ideal health but hey, the average person probably won’t die of malnutrition because they can’t find a food source with a particular nutrient.

Would we be happier? Now that’s debatable. The psychological impact of the kinds of societies we live in is interesting to think about, but we don’t have the data to back up any assumptions. For all we know, the peak of human happiness was in the high Middle Ages and it’s all been downhill since the Black Death. I do think that people in the modern age are generally miserable, I know I am, but I don’t know how much of that can be blamed on agriculture.

Overall, I think the development of agriculture was probably a positive for humans generally, but it’s for sure had some negative effects too, ie; environmental impact. It’s a double edged sword, but one edge is sharper.

Maybe some people, the kind with the knowhow to survive in the wild and the desire to do so, would be happier and healthier living like their greatx50 grandparents, but I imagine most people, even if they despise much of the modern world think we would be better off looking to the past, wouldn’t trade modern medicine, tech, and culture for one where your only source of entertainment is counting bats on the roof of your cave.

 

[Polish Eagle]

Yes but I don’t think youth mortality was higher in HG societies. Some people may not like it if I use animals for comparison but AFAIK childbirth mortality among animals is much less common than among human beings so since HGs were "closer to nature" than modern day humans, their childbirth mortality rate should have been closer to that of other naimal species.

Birth is uniquely dangerous for humans because of our large skulls. The rather underdeveloped state of the human infant also makes human children particularly weak.

At the same time, our habit of wiping out apex predators means that we don’t have to worry so much about predation.

Curiously, the data suggests that infant mortality is roughly the same across hunter-gatherers, historic agrarian societies, and even non-human primates. Only with modern medicine has the rate decreased substantially.

Mortality in the past: every second child died

The chances that a newborn survives childhood have increased from 50% to 96% globally. This article asks how we know about the mortality of children in the past and what we can learn from it for our future.

ourworldindata.org

 

[Jan Olbracht]

HG society is more egalitarian, as hunter-gatherers have very limited ability to accumulate wealth. Thus for people, who were at the top of social pyramid agricultural lifestyle certainly was better, not so much for these at the bottom.

 

[spkaca]

HG society is more egalitarian, as hunter-gatherers have very limited ability to accumulate wealth.

I do think there is a methodological problem in this statement. The archaeological record shows us material culture, but not social structure/ dynamics. On the one hand, if no-one in a tribe/ clan owns anything more than a particularly shiny stone, then clearly there is a kind of equality there as regards material goods. But that's isn't the only thing we should take into account in assessing whether a society is egalitarian. We can readily imagine a scenario where one person, or (more likely) one family or small group within the tribe/ clan has a position of authority (perhaps based on religious/ magical status). That small group can then use its authority to get various social/ economic goods: its first pick of food gathered/ hunted by the clan, first pick of mating partners, priority in decision-making (e.g. "I know you guys want to go north, but we want to go east, the ancestors told us"), etc. Thus we end up with a quite non-egalitarian society, but that wouldn't show up in the archaeological record.
I'm not saying this is necessarily how it was, merely that the evidence we have doesn't permit us to conclude that prehistoric HG societies were egalitarian. We can't say either way.

 

[Brita]

Too many people here are focused only on the material part of the equation.

Unless you're full on pure Marxist or Materialist, you should know that isn't all that matters.

I agree. As an enthusiastic fan of art and literature, I must say that I can’t see how one can answer the OP’s question in the affirmative. Without the division of labor enabled by the agricultural revolution, our high-technology civilization, and the practically limitless access to cultural works it enables, would not be possible. This alone makes hunter-gatherer existence tantamount to living in Plato’s cave.

Well, arts in HG societies weren't as developped as they later became but painting, sculpture and storytelling existed (I think the oldest sculpture ever found, The Venus of Hohle Fels, was made c.35,000 years ago).

 

[BELFAST]

Would we be healthier?

In some ways yes.
They would not suffer from diseases like obesity and the problem of industrial pollution, accidents, major wars etc.
Tooth decay from sugar in the diet would not happen also smoking tobacco etc.
Most hunter-gather had a lot of knowledge of plant-based medicine.
They probably might have different health problems in the modern world.
Teeth would probably suffer a lot more wear due to people using their teeth to prepare food and hides for use.
Congenital defects would not be treatable and the same for any thing requiring surgery.

Certainly not. I like being able to not die from kidney stones and uncooked meat. It’s not like modern humans are a picture of ideal health but hey, the average person probably won’t die of malnutrition because they can’t find a food source with a particular nutrient.

Hunter gathers as far as I know knew how to cook meat in a fire. Malnutrition, I am not sure if that was a problem as they usually had a wide choice of food sources.
I am not sure if kidney stones were a problem at the time with the diet they had.

Would we be happier? Now that’s debatable. The psychological impact of the kinds of societies we live in is interesting to think about, but we don’t have the data to back up any assumptions. For all we know, the peak of human happiness was in the high Middle Ages and it’s all been downhill since the Black Death. I do think that people in the modern age are generally miserable, I know I am, but I don’t know how much of that can be blamed on agriculture.

As you say hard to say.

Overall, I think the development of agriculture was probably a positive for humans generally, but it’s for sure had some negative effects too, ie; environmental impact. It’s a double edged sword, but one edge is sharper.

In the long term, it was a good thing. But as you said it did introduce a lot of new problems as well as solving old ones.
It did allow for a lot of positive as well as negative things to come to from it.

Maybe some people, the kind with the knowhow to survive in the wild and the desire to do so, would be happier and healthier living like their greatx50 grandparents, but I imagine most people, even if they despise much of the modern world think we would be better off looking to the past, wouldn’t trade modern medicine, tech, and culture for one where your only source of entertainment is counting bats on the roof of your cave.

As none of us grew up in a culture or anything like that is very alien to us. I cannot see anyone going back to that time even Ray Mears or Les hiddins for any thing other than short trips to learn about the period the bushcraft skills they had.

 

[Twiggierjet]

Would we be happier? Now that’s debatable. The psychological impact of the kinds of societies we live in is interesting to think about, but we don’t have the data to back up any assumptions. For all we know, the peak of human happiness was in the high Middle Ages and it’s all been downhill since the Black Death. I do think that people in the modern age are generally miserable, I know I am, but I don’t know how much of that can be blamed on agriculture.

Honestly this is the default state of humanity no matter what time and place it's in. Grass is always greener on the other side and all that. I guarantee you that if in the next few years we solved every problem making people miserable, within a generation or two humanity would be right back at baseline for some other reason.

 

[Locke01]

Depends on how you measure "better" I think we'd be happier for sure.

As a disabled person, I think my life would have been rather short, brutal and very unhappy in a society that depended on hunting and gathering to get by. So, that is a polite no from me. We are not better off being hunters and gatherers

 

[aben]

As a disabled person, I think my life would have been rather short, brutal and very unhappy in a society that depended on hunting and gathering to get by. So, that is a polite no from me. We are not better off being hunters and gatherers

To be fair though, the chance of your life being short, brutal, and very unhappy being disabled would have been almost as equally likely in the pre modern post agricultural society.