this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2025
320 points (94.2% liked)

Memes

46032 readers
2354 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Fight Club told that when man were hunter/gatherers we spend twenty hours a week working so it must be true.

[–] alekwithak@lemmy.world 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You know there are still hunter-gatherer societies. You don't have to take Palahniuk's word for it.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I'm a freegan so I'm basically an urban hunter/gatherer.

[–] parity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

I love the idea of people existing off the excess/castoffs/waste of society.

I'm a thief (businesses and wealthy people) so we're both kind of "living off the land" so to speak but the land is society at large.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 8 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Part of the reason why the transition to agriculture was so difficult, is because that is true. Agriculture is a lot of work, and requires a lot more labor time than the hunter-gatherer mode of production.

Of course in the long run, agricultural societies end up overcoming hunter-gatherer ones, because they're able to support a much larger population.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

If they’re able to support a larger population shouldn’t it average out to less work?

[–] Grapho@lemmy.ml 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

No, because agriculture isn't about minimising labor, it's about maximising the productivity of a given field. While you can sustain more people from a smaller territory, the process necessitates a division of labor where some have to make and fix the tools or tend to the livestock while others cook, till the land or collect and sow the seeds, etc.

It had very little to do with getting an easier life and more with preventing famine by way of ensuring a surplus in foodstuffs.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 5 points 12 hours ago

If the metric is labor time per food produced, agriculture is much more efficient than hunting and gathering. But it requires a ton of startup labor, and waiting months, so it isn't as immediate.

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 4 points 12 hours ago

I suppose, but since there's a much more limited supply of gatherable food, there's an upper limit on the time you can spend, and the size of community it can support.

Agriculture doesn't have that upper limit (well, arable land limit but that's still much more), plus it takes a ton of work to sow crops, irrigate water, and wait months for harvest. Much harder than just picking berries for an hour or two a day, which is why the transition to agriculture took so long even after it was discovered.

[–] tyo_ukko@sopuli.xyz 3 points 15 hours ago

Harari claims something similar in his book Sapiens, so it might not be so far fetched. However, even then people would have to pay for being alive with their work, even if it's less.