# Is modern civilization a mistake? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 3, 2017, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978 "2017-06-03T03:25:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 9:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/121 "2017-06-13T09:01:31Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > True, perhaps. But how good is freedom and autonomy if your life is nasty, brutish, and short? Where do you get that it was brutish and short? During the middle ages life expectancy was around 65 years. If you reached adulthood that is. Child deaths is what gets the averages down. > [@Trinopus](#): > > Then modern civilization is a good thing, because we can spend less of our time fulfilling basic needs, and much more of our time on leisure activities. > > Do you imagine hunter-gatherers had “weekends?” It was hunter gatherers that spent less time fulfilling basic needs, compared to farmers and modern 40 hours work weeks (excluding commuting and grocery shopping). After a good hunt there would be meat for at least a couple of days. Then there is also fishing, set a basket trap in the morning, there’s your lunch. So, yeah, they would be horrified by our weekends. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/122 "2017-06-13T10:07:42Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Where do you get that it was brutish and short? > During the middle ages life expectancy was around 65 years. > If you reached adulthood that is. Child deaths is what gets the averages down. Consider that according to Wikipedia, [the average life expectancy in England in the middle ages was 30](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy). What percentage of the population never hit adulthood? I haven’t worked it out, but 1/3rd doesn’t seem out of line. When 1/3rd of your population doesn’t reach adulthood, then yes, “brutish and short” is a very apt description of life. > [@](#): > > It was hunter gatherers that spent less time fulfilling basic needs, compared to farmers and modern 40 hours work weeks (excluding commuting and grocery shopping). > After a good hunt there would be meat for at least a couple of days. > Then there is also fishing, set a basket trap in the morning, there’s your lunch. > > So, yeah, they would be horrified by our weekends. Citation needed. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/123 "2017-06-13T11:21:29Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Consider that according to Wikipedia, [the average life expectancy in England in the middle ages was 30](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy). What percentage of the population never hit adulthood? I haven’t worked it out, but 1/3rd doesn’t seem out of line. When 1/3rd of your population doesn’t reach adulthood, then yes, “brutish and short” is a very apt description of life. Again, it is infant mortality that brings down the **average** lifespan. If you didn’t die in infancy you could live to 60-70 years old. So, no, "brutish and short"is not an apt qualifier. > [@](#): > > Citation needed. You need a citation for there being plenty of fish, fowl and game in prehistory?? Recent hunter-gatherers like the Kho San or the plains indians are not respresentative of prehistoric hunting and gathering. Consider that these people have been pushed out of the more bountyful areas. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/124 "2017-06-13T13:17:20Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Again, it is infant mortality that brings down the **average** lifespan. > If you didn’t die in infancy you could live to 60-70 years old. So, no, "brutish and short"is not an apt qualifier. It was quite short for the ones who died in infancy, no? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/125 "2017-06-13T13:49:12Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > It was quite short for the ones who died in infancy, no? Sure, but what the “short and brutish life” implies is that hardly anyone lived to be 35. This is simply not true. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/126 "2017-06-13T13:54:35Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Again, it is infant mortality that brings down the **average** lifespan. > If you didn’t die in infancy you could live to 60-70 years old. So, no, "brutish and short"is not an apt qualifier. Right, but when a third of the population dies in infancy… Eh, whatever, the term isn’t particularly _meaningful_. We certainly can’t throw out the massive advantage we have in terms of not watching children and mothers die during childbirth and treat it like it’s nothing. > [@](#): > > You need a citation for there being plenty of fish, fowl and game in prehistory?? I certainly need a citation for the idea that this effectively translated to the kind of luxurious life you claim it did. That seems patently absurd to me - why in the world would anyone transition to agriculture if hunting and fishing was so easy? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/127 "2017-06-13T14:13:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Right, but when a third of the population dies in infancy… Eh, whatever, the term isn’t particularly _meaningful_. We certainly can’t throw out the massive advantage we have in terms of not watching children and mothers die during childbirth and treat it like it’s nothing. Of course not. Just saying life wasn’t as hard as it is often made out to be. > [@](#): > > why in the world would anyone transition to agriculture if hunting and fishing was so easy? By force. It looks like hunter-gatherers in Europe were mostly pushed out by the arrival of the farmers. Like the Kho San they did linger for some time in areas less attractive for farming, like marshes. Of course there would have been a mixing of the populations but there is evidence that hunter gatherers persisted for quite some time longer than the arrival of farming. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/128 "2017-06-13T14:29:18Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > I certainly need a citation for the idea that this effectively translated to the kind of luxurious life you claim it did. That seems patently absurd to me - why in the world would anyone transition to agriculture if hunting and fishing was so easy? I admit to being curious as to what was still being discussed in this thread because I think there is the potential for an interesting discussion here. Nothing I’ve ever read has suggested that the workload of hunter-gatherer societies was any lighter than early agriculturalists. The main reason I’ve seen in scholarly works for the switch from hunting-gathering to domestication to agriculture is a more reliable food supply [1,2]. Additionally Smith notes that the switch from hunter-gatherer to agriculturist is a one way street. Agriculture was simply better and established the base that produced everything that has followed in human history. Ingold [2] suggests that the amount of work involved between agriculture and hunting-gathering is about the same and again the switch primarily occurs because it creates a more reliable food supply, although it has been noted that some societies simply have it easier than others with hunting-gathering [3] due to their environment. I know I’ve seen it before, but cannot find it right now, that overpopulation created an environment that required agriculture. Hunting-gathering simply could not keep up in a reliable way. [1] Smith, B. D. (2001). Low-level food production. Journal of Archaeological Research, 9(1), 1-43. [2] Ingold, T. (1996). Growing plants and raising animals: an anthropological perspective on domestication. The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia, 12-24. [3] Johnson, A. W., & Earle, T. K. (2000). The evolution of human societies: from foraging group to agrarian state. Stanford University Press. ---
**Author:** ![BeepKillBeep](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@BeepKillBeep](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BeepKillBeep)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/129 "2017-06-13T14:44:23Z")
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, eyeglasses, a fresh water system, public health, the electric grid, and ice cream what has modern civilization ever done for us? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/130 "2017-06-13T16:19:51Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Sure, but what the “short and brutish life” implies is that hardly anyone lived to be 35. This is simply not true. That might be what it implies to you, but I don’t think most in this thread think that. When up to half (or even more) of the children die before they more than 5 that seems pretty ‘short’ and ‘brutish’ to me. Even getting out of your 20’s was a struggle. Certainly, if you managed to live that long you COULD, in theory, life into your 60’s (or even longer)…but every year was a roll of the dice between the potential of starvation if it was a bad year, an injury that could cripple or kill you, disease and a host of other things. The idyllic life you and the OP seem to be implying just isn’t born out in the data. There is a show on Science that I’ve seen a couple of episodes (the name escapes me atm) where a guy goes to live with the various hunter-gatherer tribes that still exist. He learns how life works for them, tries to become at least an honorary part of the tribe, and generally does some sort of challenge. In one episode he joined a tribe of Aborigines in Australia, in another, it was a tribe in the Jungles of New Guinea. In all of them, he goes through how hard life is and how challenging, not just to him but to the tribes. It’s an eye opener, especially to folks who think that our hunting and gathering ancestors lived these nice lives in touch with nature. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/131 "2017-06-13T17:55:08Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Recent hunter-gatherers like the Kho San > [@Latro](#): > > Like the Kho San It’s just San, or Bushmen. \*Khoe-\*San (not Kho-San) is an ethnicity, not a lifeway. The Khoe-khoen parts were not H-Gs, they were agriculturalists. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/132 "2017-06-13T20:21:05Z")
> [@XT](#): > > The idyllic life you and the OP seem to be implying … It’s an eye opener, especially to folks who think that our hunting and gathering ancestors lived these nice lives in touch with nature. I have in no way implied that life was idyllic, I just do not subscribe to the popular notion that the rise of agriculture was such a leap forward in leasure time or diet. There is enough evidence that early farmers were less healthy. What farming did was that it could indeed feed a larger population. Not feed it better. Plus it created wealth for some of the people, which made them more powerful rulers, which in turn meant they could organise their society more effectively, as they could command more men with more authority. The life of the common farmer did not improve at all, the infant mortality, diseases and crippling accidents would still affect them as before. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/133 "2017-06-13T20:22:34Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > It’s just San, or Bushmen. \*Khoe-\*San (not Kho-San) is an ethnicity, not a lifeway. The Khoe-khoen parts were not H-Gs, they were agriculturalists. Roger. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/134 "2017-06-13T21:05:42Z")
[QUOTE=Latro] I have in no way implied that life was idyllic, I just do not subscribe to the popular notion that the rise of agriculture was such a leap forward in leasure time or diet. [/QUOTE] Well, the OP seems to feel it was and it seemed you were agreeing. Sorry about that. As for the rest here, it depends on what you mean. By diet, do you mean having a varied and healthy diet, or sufficient diet for a larger population? Obviously, HG had better diets…when times were good. When they weren’t, they starved a lot easier than agricultural societies did and basically an HG lifestyle didn’t allow for really large population densities by its very nature. You probably did have more leisure time as an HG when times were good, but agriculture allowed for larger populations that could have non-survival specializations more so than HG groups did. You could have guys who’s sole job was, say, carving stone blocks for something other than weapons. > [@](#): > > There is enough evidence that early farmers were less healthy. Sure…but being less healthy isn’t necessarily a detriment when it allowed for farmers to have a more stable food supply using less overall labor. It allowed farmers to have more children (who, as noted, died in large numbers). It’s pretty obvious based on history that the folks who settled down to an agricultural existence had a survival edge over those who didn’t…it wasn’t some sort of conspiracy to put down the HGs who were on the right path. > [@](#): > > What farming did was that it could indeed feed a larger population. Not feed it better. Plus it created wealth for some of the people, which made them more powerful rulers, which in turn meant they could organise their society more effectively, as they could command more men with more authority. Right, though you are putting the cart before the horse. Powerful rulers didn’t trick folks into agriculture to get powerful, agriculture gave their societies an advantage over HG societies, allowing them to have a surplus and gave rise to powerful rulers who could have people dedicated to things other than just survival, who could specialize in skills that HG tribes couldn’t as much…such as people who could build permanent settlements or people who could just be warriors, both supported by farmers who could produce crops with more regularity and quantity (even if they lacked the variety and nutritional value) than the HG tribes. > [@](#): > > The life of the common farmer did not improve at all, the infant mortality, diseases and crippling accidents would still affect them as before. Certainly…heck, probably more as a percentage. The difference was that agricultural societies could have a lot more kids and support larger populations, so the loss of some children was countered by the ability to have and support more. And, basically, that path lead to today, which the OP was comparing and contrasting too. Compared to today, both HG societies and early agricultural societies were ‘short and brutish’, and compared to each other…well, it would depend on a lot of factors. And HG human could have it pretty good…as long as things were going ok, they weren’t injured, the animals and plants they relied on were available, and disease in their small band wasn’t raging. The agriculturalist would have had to face a less varied diet, a chance of crop failure, a disease caused by domesticated animals, closer quarters and contamination, as well as the not so occasional raid by nomads or other agricultural societies. By and large, though, the early agriculturalists obviously had a survival advantage over the HG societies. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/135 "2017-06-13T21:37:00Z")
As for the notion that it’s only in the modern era that we sit around and wonder what the point of it all is, that’s clearly false. Machinaforce, you’re a drifter, right? So the next time you’re at a cheap hotel, open the drawer and pull out the Bible and read the book of Job. Next turn to Ecclesiastes. Here are books thousands of years old, asking “what the fuck is the point of all this?” Yeah, people were busy scratching for food and fighting for survival. That doesn’t mean they didn’t wonder why the hell they had to scratch for food and fight for survival. As has been said, if you want a life of constant toil and struggle for survival, such a life is freely available to you. But that life isn’t going to remove your existential dread, but make it worse. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/136 "2017-06-14T02:46:28Z")
This is all pretty interesting. I had no idea about the lifestyles of people back then. But what about the video I posted that said our ancestors were superior to us “as individuals”? They could do many things on their own, but we are dependent on others who specialize and the technology we have to support us. Isn’t that technological slavery? That we lack the skills and traits our ancestors have? That we have become so insulated by civilization that we are slaves to it? That the strong are brought down and the weak are coddled in society. That we have lost that sense of rugged individualism. That Jared Diamond is a popular name when it comes to whether agriculture was good or not. People said that those who have a problem with him are just very particular about their own pet theories. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/137 "2017-06-14T07:38:11Z")
Not even chimps are “rugged individualists” - we’ve always been social animals. Any human who want to do it all themselves is, IMO, really bad at actually being human. And likely [stressed and full of ticks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_grooming#Evolutionary_advantages). And Heinlein was wrong, specialisation is for humans too, and always has been AFAICT. I don’t know of any H-Gs that don’t have at least gender role differentiation and other specialist roles (wise man, storyteller etc.) and see no reason that wouldn’t always have been the case. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/138 "2017-06-14T12:18:39Z")
> [@Machinaforce](#): > > That we have lost that sense of rugged individualism. I blame electricity and indoor plumbing. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/139 "2017-06-14T13:14:30Z")
[QUOTE=Machinaforce] But what about the video I posted that said our ancestors were superior to us “as individuals”? They could do many things on their own, but we are dependent on others who specialize and the technology we have to support us. Isn’t that technological slavery? That we lack the skills and traits our ancestors have? That we have become so insulated by civilization that we are slaves to it? That the strong are brought down and the weak are coddled in society. That we have lost that sense of rugged individualism. [/QUOTE] Of course, they never were individuals…their survival, then as now, depended on the group and on their technology. I already addressed the technology aspect up thread, but to reiterate, they were as dependent or even more dependent on technology as we are. Take their technology away and they would die…same today as then, just more immediate. Sure, they were better adapted to their technology than we are to THEIR technology, but the converse is also true…plop one of them down in our time and they wouldn’t have any way to survive except by the generosity of the group. I’m thinking our group (depending on where you put them down) would be more generous to them than their group would be to one of us set down among them, but neither would have any of the skills necessary to survive in the society of the other. ---
**Author:** ![Machinaforce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aeb1de/32.png) [@Machinaforce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machinaforce)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2017, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978/140 "2017-06-14T21:11:35Z")
There’s some new evidence that seems to make a strong case against agriculture and by extension civilization: [http://1-1.huntergatherers.org](http://1-1.huntergatherers.org) This is the full page: [http://huntergatherers.org](http://huntergatherers.org) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-modern-civilization-a-mistake/787978.md?page=8)