Quake3World

Hey, watch it. Geoff is the only hunter/gatherer of western civilization. A true specimen.

like anyone who works...wife included...or me if i ever work again...

lol

Hunters "worked" less for lots of reasons.

1)Generally no night shifts required or possible.

2) In northern climates that would probably be a skewed number since it is more seasonal.

3) In their society there were few sitting on their ass being deadweight (young,elderly, crippled Mr. Moms like g00ff)

3) Their lower standard of living means less work required. More D.I.N.K.S nowadays are working for big screen tvs, oversized houses and SUVs they don't really need.

Canidae wrote:Hunters "worked" less for lots of reasons.

1)Generally no night shifts required or possible.

2) In northern climates that would probably be a skewed number since it is more seasonal.

3) In their society there were few sitting on their ass being deadweight (young,elderly, crippled Mr. Moms like g00ff)

3) Their lower standard of living means less work required. More D.I.N.K.S nowadays are working for big screen tvs, oversized houses and SUVs they don't really need.

1) Not in the Arctic
2) Not true, they hunt during all seasons in the north
3) Also not completely true, there's actually a great deal of just lounging around
4) "Lower standard of living" really is judgment call.
5) Learn how to count.

edit: for the sake of clarity.

Jackal wrote:

Canidae wrote:Hunters "worked" less for lots of reasons.

1)Generally no night shifts required or possible.

2) In northern climates that would probably be a skewed number since it is more seasonal.

3) In their society there were few sitting on their ass being deadweight (young,elderly, crippled Mr. Moms like g00ff)

3) Their lower standard of living means less work required. More D.I.N.K.S nowadays are working for big screen tvs, oversized houses and SUVs they don't really need.

1) Not in the Arctic
2) Not true, they hunt during all seasons in the north
3) Also not completely true, there's actually a great deal of just lounging around
4) "Lower standard of living" really is judgment call.
5) Learn how to count.

edit: for the sake of clarity.

1) A lot of the food eaten in harsh winter conditions is stored food like dried fish which they do a lot of in the nwt, but perhaps there is no general answer that is right due to the immense different conditions all over North America and the different ways of different people so there is hunting in winter but you deliberately ignored any comment about night hunting.

2)Hunting IS more seasonal especially in the north side daylight varies alot season to season and different seasons have different abundances of animals to hunt but of course Inuits need to hunt in "winter"

3)If work is more evenly distributed and there is less deadweight their is more time for all to lounge around as you put it and in some cases they are being productive while lounging around preparing stores, making cloths etc. You've made my point.

4)Glad you agree.

5) I used the quick reply box and did exactly that, so sue me

i hunt cunt

and wear ass

like a hat

Jackal wrote:Ok, so I'm smack dab in the middle of exams this week and have therefore been doing way more reading than usual. Specifically, I've been reading a lot of ethnographies for a visual anthropology class I'm taking. On to my point.
The socially accepted norm of work hours in industrialized society is around 40 hours per week. Hunter gatherers however get all the food they need from working merely 20 hours a week. I think it's funny that most people would look at their way of life as being primitive and brutish even though it's more efficient than our own (at least in terms of subsistence).
So would you ever give up your 9-5 cubicle job to go pick nuts in
Africa?

Lol...

K well first off, hunter gatheres don't have any of the modern conveniences we have. A tribe that's still hunting for sustenance will be prone to malnourishment and starvation. The average lifespan is seriously reduced plus as foo mentioned we could easily work 20 hours a week and get by with life. Hell I rarely work more than 30.

I would say it's much less efficient. Our modern day farms are way more efficient than any hunter gatherer tribe and can sustain a much larger population. Plus we don't have to move.

Wishful thinking is neat but in this case you're definitely wrong.

Blow up all the credit card companies!

Kracus wrote:

Jackal wrote:Ok, so I'm smack dab in the middle of exams this week and have therefore been doing way more reading than usual. Specifically, I've been reading a lot of ethnographies for a visual anthropology class I'm taking. On to my point.
The socially accepted norm of work hours in industrialized society is around 40 hours per week. Hunter gatherers however get all the food they need from working merely 20 hours a week. I think it's funny that most people would look at their way of life as being primitive and brutish even though it's more efficient than our own (at least in terms of subsistence).
So would you ever give up your 9-5 cubicle job to go pick nuts in
Africa?

Lol...

K well first off, hunter gatheres don't have any of the modern conveniences we have. A tribe that's still hunting for sustenance will be prone to malnourishment and starvation. The average lifespan is seriously reduced plus as foo mentioned we could easily work 20 hours a week and get by with life. Hell I rarely work more than 30.

I would say it's much less efficient. Our modern day farms are way more efficient than any hunter gatherer tribe and can sustain a much larger population. Plus we don't have to move.

Wishful thinking is neat but in this case you're definitely wrong.

First off, our farming techniques aren't a "perfect" as you say they are and often damage the environment. Not to mention the effect climate change is having on a lot of the major crop centers of the world. A few floods or forest fires in some inoppurtune places could send a large percentage of the world into starvaion.
Gatherers DO have quite a few "modern conviences". You just wouldn't know that because you're an idiot.
Secondly, depending on where you're looking hunter gatherers live as long, if not longer, than your average big mac eating north american lard ass. In the Kalahari 60 is considered "old age" much like it is here.
Subsistence? Let's look at the facts (once again concerning the !Kung): Meat: 690 Calories/Person/Day.
Mongongo Nuts: 1365 Calories/Person/Day.
Other Vegetables: 300 Calories/Person/Day.
Total: 2355 Calories/Person/Day.
"The caloric levels were more than adequate to support Dobe population and to allow the people to live vigorous, active lives without losing weight." (Lee, The Dobe Ju/'hoansi, P. 57).

Sure sounds like they're on the brink of starvation huh? and look at all of the malnourrishment!

But then again, you answer phones for a living and have a degree from a "compucollege".

I never said modern farms were perfect.

Second, let's see hunter gatherers provide for a city of 10 million.

Third the modern conveniences they DO have were provided by modern civlizations that have advanced BEYOND the hunter gatherer phase.

As for nourishment I didn't say they were currently starving I said hunter gatherer tribes are more prone to malnourishment and starvation which is true. You can tell me all the data on a single succesful tribe if you want and I could find 2 that weren't.

I may awnser phones for a living Jackass but I wouldn't stupid enough to assume living in a hunter gatherer tribe to be more efficient than living in modern civilization. If that's what your university is teaching you then I guess that just shows they'll take any idiot these days.

Before the Bronze Age, people in the north/west parts of Europe rarely made their fortieth birthday, mostly because the cold winters combined with malnutrition (mostly meat and carbohydrates like grain, little fruit or vegetables) wore them out. IIRC my history lessons correctly, life in the the southern parts was a bit better on account of the more moderate climate.

The concept of a hunter gatherer population providing for a city of 10 million is completely antithetical to the ideal.
Your idea of more "advanced" populations moving BEYOND others is dated. Social evolution is simply a retarded concept.
Show 2 hunter gatherer populations that are starving and I'll explain to you why it isn't their fault.

lol I never said it had to be their fault.

edit: nm

Kracus wrote:lol I never said it had to be their fault.

That's fine then, you're saying that it is more efficient.

Actualy I'm an accomplished Archer and I suspect I'd do relatively well since I grew up in the country and love camping/hiking and I'm known to dissapear for a week or so during the summer to go on trips but that's besides the point.

My point is that Jackal is wrong. There's simply no way any hunter gatherer tribe is more efficient than modern civlization. Even in terms of sustanance.

You can argue that a tribe only needs to work 20 hours to live but you don't keep into concideration the ratio of hunters to the number of people they support which means you're basicly full of shit.

If 1 farm, operated by say 10 workers has the ability to provide for say 1000 people (I suspect the number would be higher but let's use 1000 for fun) then that means each person sustains 100 people wheras the hunter gatheres tribe is lucky to have more than 100 people which would probably take 10 hunters to support.

Even if they worked 40 hours a week it still wouldn't even be close.

-Replicant- wrote:edit: nm

Yeah well I read it and you're wise to retract your arguments cause they were pretty retarded.

Kracus wrote:Actualy I'm an accomplished Archer and I suspect I'd do relatively well since I grew up in the country and love camping/hiking and I'm known to dissapear for a week or so during the summer to go on trips but that's besides the point.

My point is that Jackal is wrong. There's simply no way any hunter gatherer tribe is more efficient than modern civlization. Even in terms of sustanance.

You can argue that a tribe only needs to work 20 hours to live but you don't keep into concideration the ratio of hunters to the number of people they support which means you're basicly full of shit.

If 1 farm, operated by say 10 workers has the ability to provide for say 1000 people (I suspect the number would be higher but let's use 1000 for fun) then that means each person sustains 100 people wheras the hunter gatheres tribe is lucky to have more than 100 people which would probably take 10 hunters to support.

Even if they worked 40 hours a week it still wouldn't even be close.

Your problem is that you keep trying to apply the hunter/gatherer mode of subsistence as a means of supporting western civilization. The hunter/gatherer way of life demands a certain type of social organization which western society does not have.
Also you need to stop focusing so much on hunting since it plays such a small role in subsistence.

Hunting is a small role in a hunter gatherer society?

What the fuck bullshit book are you reading?

Besides, you're talking about effiency and so am I. I'm saying a farm is more efficient than the hunters and proving it by showing you what's just plain obvious and you choose to ignore what I've stated. That's fine, it just shows that despite all your university teachings your really no smarter than I am.

Now if we all went by your reasoning here that hunter/gatherer way of life demands a different social setting then why live socialy at all?

I mean let's all just split off and live alone as hermits! THAT would be the MOST efficient way to live since we only really have to work for food a couple hours a week to sustain ourselves! Priceless, I never woulda thought of it Jackal. :icon19:

I'm sorry man, but in this case you are simply incorrect. Even in a hunter/gatherer society, when they become large enough to understand and manipulate agriculture they'll inevitably live a more comfortable existance and choose that existance over the one where you chase your food for a living. It's simply NOT efficient.

Kracus, Jackal's actually factually spot on and you're gassing about something you have no clue aboot. Hunter gatherer is a specific term and does not mean Ted fucking Nugent.

Start with the burden of infectious diseases/public health as soon as a large population starts living in the same place and work from there, and you'll realize that what really drives modern society is a whopping fossil fuel energy boost. The cost of civilization resulted in the almost total deforestation of england, for example.

Sorry agricultural society's were around before fossil fuels.

Not that I'm saying fossil fuels don't account for current modern civlization, I'm just saying, you don't need fuel to have a farm that'll sustain more people more efficiently than hunting game.

no moron...but there are over 6 billion ppl in the world...without fossil fuels agriculture can't support half that...or even a quarter...

Maybe if you actualy read what I said you wouldn't look so stupid ALL THE FUCKING TIME.