The idea is that as hunter-gatherers people live peaceful, leisurely lives, and that agriculture introduced overcrowding, famine, disease, inequality and endless toil.
But is it possible the h-g lifestyle was really so blissful? For one thing, what kept their numbers down, if it wasn’t starvation?
For another, why is it when people have a choice, they so rarely choose it?
Am I right in thinking this is an example of academics romanticizing something they don’t really understand?
Not the “Noble Savage” thing! Please!
Disease. Sepsis. More disease. Losing your teeth. Starving. Freezing.
All of that is bad enough, but the hellish stultifying of human individuality is what makes primitive tribal existence utterly intolerable to anyone with a working mind. You don’t get to think; you don’t get to innovate. You sing the songs you’re told to sing; you hunt on the paths you’re told to hunt on. You don’t question the elders. You don’t question the spirits. Brother, it makes the Nazis and Communists seem positively open-minded in comparison!
Civilization is not a mistake! It is the crowning triumph of the human spirit! (To date; it’s likely to get BETTER!)
The origins of this come from the Jared Diamond article The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race.
The argument is that it took until very recently for living standards to rise above what the Hunter Gatherers experienced.
The reason why agriculture won out over HG was because it supported a higher population density which meant more militaristic and political power.
It was arguably one of the worst mistakes made for the people between then and now. Ultimately it allowed humanity to develop modern technological civilization, so it was good for humanity as a whole in the very long run; but for most of history it was a pretty hellish existence for most of the population. A hunter-gatherer is worse off than most modern people; but they were better off than a slave, serf, or most peasants. And that’s what the vast majority of people were in post hunter gatherer/pre-industrial civilization.
The grass is always greener.
The archeological record shows that your average h/g was much more likely to die a violent death than your average farmer. Despite even the recent Word Wars, the history of the human race, as a whole, has been one of increasing peace and less violence.
HG societies tend to be much more violent than any other sort of human arrangement tried so far.
Yeah. You can’t be peace-loving when you’re constantly having to defend your hunting and foraging grounds.
It’s noted by Gwynne Dyer that studies of the Yanomano and other similar Stone Age tribes show a mortality rate, generation to generation, of 25% to inter-tribal conflict. That is, 25% of all adult deaths are due to warfare. Forever.
That is, by way of comparison, a permanent wartime death rate higher than the combatants of the Second World War collectively experienced during the war.
Are wars between hunter-gatherers always known to be territorial?
There seems to be enough behavioural variation among other apes to suggest that war is not an inevitable consequence of this lifestyle. War is common in humans and chimpanzees, but aren’t gorillas fairly peaceful? How do they do it?
They’re pussies.
The Bonobo, or pygmy chimpanzee, seems to resolve most of its conflicts with sex, rather than violence. Lots of sex, all the time.
We could learn from their example.
“hog” lifestyle? Why did you put a dash through the middle of that word? 
But many people would argue that even a hellish existence is better than no existence at all. Agriculture may have required a mass of peasants to support it but it also supported that mass of peasants. Farming produced enough food (albeit through hard labor) for population growth.
Saying a tribe of a hundred hunter-gathers lived better lives than a village of a thousand peasants is only ten percent true. For the other ninety percent, life as a peasant was better than no life at all.
But just to be clear, the Yanomano are not hunter/gatherers. They are farmers.
I don’t think you can accurately characterize hunter/gatherer violence as “war”. There may have been times when whole clans were killed by other clans, but the violence might be within clans or with small skirmishes between clans that lasted less than a day.
Probably, but I think they are right in one important respect, which is that in some respects, the human brain may be better adapted to life as a hunter gatherer than to modern life working 9 to 5 in an office shuffling paper.
Paul Graham had some interesting thoughts about this issue:
I have seen elsewhere that Lions live for about 10-16 years in the wild. While in captivity they live for as long as 20-25 years old.
One can make the point that they and other critters were designed for the wild, but when one option is a shorter life, I think it was a good trade to get a longer and more content life.
The point in this discussion being that we live longer but less content.
Would you rather live 20 more years in misery or 10 good ones?
GIGO: Would you make the trade? If I told you I could give you a much better chance of a longer life “in captivity”, would you choose it?
I don’t buy it. Diamond himself says that H/G had to convert to farming when their populations became too large to support a H/G economy.
If you take a position that agriculture was the worst mistake in human history, subsequently the industrial revolution and the information age have to be up there as well. Because none of that would be possible either without a steady and reliable source of food.
And how is it even relevant today? In the US, the majority of the population isn’t even involved in the production of agriculture. And while many who are are low-wage day laborers, I would hardly call them slaves or peasents.
Fuck that shit.