←back to thread

430 points mhb | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.016s | source
Show context
PeterHolzwarth ◴[] No.46179223[source]
"A woman's work is never done."

In our agrarian past, the cultural division of labor at the time said that men worked the field, women ran the home. And that later job was brutal, never-ending, and consumed all waking hours until the day she died.

Men broke their backs in the field, women consumed their lives doing the ceaseless work that never ended, every waking moment. (And occasionally helped out in the field, too).

Running a family was a brutal two-person job -- and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds.

We forget so easily that for the entire history of our species - up until just recently - simply staying alive and somewhat warm and minimally fed was a hundred-hour-a-week job for mom and dad.

There are important downsides, but the Green Revolution - and dare I say it, the industrial revolution - was truly transformative for our species.

replies(26): >>46179343 #>>46179376 #>>46179422 #>>46179481 #>>46179798 #>>46179855 #>>46179919 #>>46180233 #>>46180355 #>>46180599 #>>46180969 #>>46181092 #>>46181124 #>>46181414 #>>46181875 #>>46181896 #>>46181937 #>>46181950 #>>46182147 #>>46182207 #>>46182381 #>>46183157 #>>46183746 #>>46184169 #>>46184908 #>>46186251 #
nowittyusername ◴[] No.46179422[source]
When humans domesticated animals and started tending to the fields is when IMO it all went down hill. That change brought in modern civilization with all its advantages but moreeso its disadvantages and maladaptive behaviors of the human mind. We shoulda stayed hunter gatherers, I am almost certain we would have been happier.
replies(7): >>46179444 #>>46179967 #>>46180265 #>>46180737 #>>46181077 #>>46181205 #>>46183362 #
PeterHolzwarth ◴[] No.46179444[source]
You first.

And no cheating by bringing antibiotics with you.

replies(9): >>46179484 #>>46179508 #>>46179529 #>>46179601 #>>46179614 #>>46179640 #>>46180009 #>>46180014 #>>46180175 #
manmal ◴[] No.46179640[source]
Hard to catch a disease when it’s always the same 15 people around you, with no communication to the outside world; and no factory farming that incubates most of these diseases.

Regarding your reference to how brutal and never-ending work was; As far as we know, many European medieval farmers had 1500-1800 working hours per year. It’s also a bit gloomy to assume the household was run by two parents and their kids - often, grandparents were colocated and helped until they couldn’t. What you‘ve described was certainly the case during famines and war, but not a permanent state.

replies(5): >>46179701 #>>46179744 #>>46179746 #>>46179819 #>>46180196 #
sarchertech ◴[] No.46179744[source]
>Hard to catch a disease when it’s always the same 15 people around you, with no communication to the outside world.

There’s plenty of bacteria hanging out in the dirt, water, the animals you eat, and on your own skin. Add in the parasites, and zoonotic viruses and it’s not very hard at all to catch a disease even as a solitary hermit in the wild.

>factory farms

Didn’t need factory farms for smallpox. Many animals live in large herds, which were larger in the past. If you read accounts from the 18th and early 19th century there are many reports of squirrel migrations involving hundreds of millions of squirrels in relatively small areas.

replies(2): >>46179870 #>>46180023 #
palmotea ◴[] No.46180023[source]
> There’s plenty of bacteria hanging out in the dirt, water, the animals you eat, and on your own skin. Add in the parasites, and zoonotic viruses and it’s not very hard at all to catch a disease even as a solitary hermit in the wild.

An hunter-gathers were probably a lot more robust to that than modern people.

Think about it: if what you say were that big of an issue, hunter-gathers would have been sickly and died out before getting to us.

replies(3): >>46180204 #>>46181372 #>>46181920 #
Qwertious ◴[] No.46180204{3}[source]
Hunter-gatherers didn't have birth control; if you have 5 kids and half of them die, you've still maintained your population.
replies(1): >>46180281 #
1. 9rx ◴[] No.46180281{4}[source]
But as the parent comment suggests, if the adults were getting sick it is unlikely that they would be able to:

* Produce 5 kids in the first place.

* Take care of the kids that they were able to produce, making survival of even half them much less likely.

But in actuality, best we are able to determine hunter-gathers who made it into adulthood lived longer, healthier lives than those in agrarian lifestyles.

replies(3): >>46180740 #>>46181177 #>>46181362 #
2. integralid ◴[] No.46180740[source]
They were getting sick and died more often than us, but still enough survived to keep the population alive. There's no contradiction.

I admit they probably had a stronger immunologic system on average, by virtue of relying on it and "exercising" more often. Alternatively, people prone to getting sick just died early.

replies(1): >>46182875 #
3. throwup238 ◴[] No.46181177[source]
The adults getting sick and being undernourished was one of the leading causes of infant mortality.
4. throw0101a ◴[] No.46181362[source]
> Take care of the kids that they were able to produce, making survival of even half them much less likely.

H-G societies tend to be smaller groups where everyone in the village helps with childcare, so if a parent was out of action for a while the children could still be gathered.

This is covered in the book Hunt, Gather, Parent by Michaeleen Doucleff, specifically with the Hadzabe people (Tanzania).

5. 9rx ◴[] No.46182875[source]
> They were getting sick and died more often than us

The comparison was with agrarian societies that were found in parallel, not "us", which presumably implies something about modern medicine. Have I misinterpreted you?

> There's no contradiction.

Was there reason to think that there was...? It is not clear what you are trying to add here.