Plethora Virgin 79

"And? Very few people existed back then. This is a problem, humans happen to receive great benefits from living with one another. An economy with enough division of labor for someone to create those computers you appear to like so much for example." Benefits, such as crime, disease, et cetera? Sure, if you like that stuff. "This is not a benefit, they produce next to nothing. Everyone out there who demands a job can tell you you they have no wish to work less. Nor does is it likely to include the full amount of work, as hunter gatherers have to travel a lot, and since they do so on foot in pre-agricultural societies (I am excluding the so called "Hunter-gatherers" who rely on modern technology that would not be possible in a pre-agricultural society), that's a LOT of time spent walking, which is a form of work- a form of work with nothing to show for it. Productive work is not something to be avoided, every worthy human being is always on the lookout for oppurtunities (sic) for it." If you asked the average worker if they would like to live a fairly easy, high quality life, and only work three hours a day, then I assure you, they would go for it. People were very happy with it for 90% of history. And furthermore, they don't walk all that much. Hunter-gatherers in the Amazon have to walk very little, as their resources are so abundant. Back then, resources were very abundant, so walking was not a huge burden, and for your information, walking is included in the three hour statistic. "By the way, I do not speak french, and your source does NOT contain the information you speak of, at least not on the page you linked to. :D" Whoops, I don't actually know how that happened, here's the real source. http://www.environnement.ens.fr... I forgot that part of the URL. "They might be more physically fit. This does not translate to healthier. The single most important criterion of health is whether you are ALIVE. It is a minority of people in a hunter-gatherer society that even live to age 30. http://johnhawks.net...; This statistic is inaccurate, because even with this information often being from pre-contact, the issue is agriculture had arisen, and had driven the groups together, and allowed disease and warfare to spread. When groups are spread out, as they would and could be without agriculture, they would live longer. "As for your bits about height... is that way taller people tend not to live as long as shorter people? :D" Funny. No, actually, Diamond's hypothesis is the opposite of that. "The cause of global warming has not been proven, and the science behind finding one is in a chronically poor state. War existed in hunter-gatherer societies, it was one of the common causes of death! Pollution, though perhaps unpleasant, is the product of the industrial revolution, which is what made our current long lifespans possible. Everyone who values their life ought to go kiss the nearest smokestack for removing several things that could have killed them (not literally, ew... blow a kiss or something). Poverty is certainly an absurdity, agriculture CREATES wealth. All the nonexistence of agriculture results is EVERYONE being in poverty. Social inequality is not a problem. Crime? Remember the violence in my source being a major cause of death?" Violence only occurs when groups are forced together by agriculture, if groups are spread out, they do not face this problem. Also, everyone is not in poverty without agriculture, a !Kung man once said "Why switch to agriculture when the world has so many juju nuts?" Maybe it wasn't juju, but it was some sort of nut. The hunter-gatherers are not rich, but they are not poor either. And if social inequality is okay, then you are fine with slavery and racism, which occurred because of agriculture? "CO2 is not a proven problem. War MIGHT be somewhat less deadly... but since it's a more common cause of death back then than it is today, it's far more frequent. Which, by the way, is not hard to explain when one hears of the short work days you speak of... how boring! Gotta do something about that boredom... why not go kill that rival tribesman? :D" I concede the global warming point, but the war point is wrong, as I have shown. People had large areas and did not need to have contact with other tribes. "Poverty does not mean your neighbor has more than you... it means you don't have much. Which is the ONLY possibility in a hunter-gatherer society." No, they have everything they need to survive. That's all they need. They are well-off. "Crime only gets REPORTED and DEALT WITH when there are large populations. In hunter gatherer societies, they have a word for the criminal who takes your stuff and makes you his slave. They call him 'Chief'" Criminals are the winners =/= no crime." There were no chiefs, they were egalitarians. "I should note, that hunter gatherer societies still exist to this day. It is very possible for you to go join one. In an environment where agriculture is not thought of, you don't have any choice about it :D." Now, with agriculture, HG sucks. The resources have been too depleted. I would not recommend switching back to it.