←back to thread

430 points mhb | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
lukan ◴[] No.46180599[source]
"and the kids had to dive in to help out the second they could lift something heavier than a couple pounds"

Earlier. Picking berries, seeds or ears of grain is something very small hands can do.

"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."

But no. You are talking about a primitive (poor) agrarian society. That only started a couple of thousands years ago, while our species used fire since over a million years in a semi nomadic live style. And those tribes in good territory, they did not had so much back braking work, as long as big land animals were around. (Also, hearding cattle was for the most part a very chilled job as well, but that also started rather recent)

replies(6): >>46180890 #>>46181639 #>>46181723 #>>46181910 #>>46184600 #>>46200297 #
Aunche ◴[] No.46180890[source]
> And those tribes in good territory, they did not had so much back braking work, as long as big land animals were around

The population of paleolithic humans never reached anywhere close to that of agricultural humans, suggesting that many died before reproductive age. Multiple nomadic cultures independently decided to not only spend several hours a day picking and grinding grass seeds to eat, but also to cultivate them for thousands of years into grains that would still be barely palatable by the standards of today. Nobody would choose this life unless if they had to.

replies(5): >>46180954 #>>46181084 #>>46181677 #>>46181712 #>>46182919 #
1. somenameforme ◴[] No.46182919{3}[source]
The big difference between agrarian and nomadic populations is that the latter is decentralized. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is generally very leisurely, but it's strictly limited in population viability. A tribe of some tens of people? Sure, no problem. A city of 5,000 people? It just doesn't work, because you'd end up wiping out the resources in your region faster than nature could replenish them.

So you're never going to see a massive hunter-gatherer population, essentially by definition. It doesn't say anything at all about their standards of life, which by most accounts were (and are) exceptionally high. [1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

replies(1): >>46184613 #
2. kspacewalk2 ◴[] No.46184613[source]
I mean, what exactly are phrases like "strictly limited in population viability" and "never going to see a massive population" euphemisms for, exactly? High mortality, intense resource competition and survival of the fittest. Not what we normally associate with "exceptionally high standards of life". The higher the standard of life, the more procreation happens, the more demand there is for a constant supply of resources, and then starvation and warfare turns that supposedly noble savage into quite a vicious competitor.
replies(2): >>46184885 #>>46189812 #
3. WalterBright ◴[] No.46184885[source]
Studies show a chaotic predator/prey relationship over time. When the ratio is small, it's fat times for the predators, and the predator population soars. Then they overhunt, and the prey diminishes, and the predator population crashes.

It's not stable.

4. somenameforme ◴[] No.46189812[source]
There are no euphemisms. The issue I think you're having is viewing things in a an artificially binary fashion. In reality it's all a lot fuzzier. If you don't have enough resources in one area it doesn't mean everybody just starves, it instead means you work a bit more, or just make do with a bit less. And that creates a voluntary pressure against fertility. Nature even has relatively tame 'stop-loss' measures here that further reinforce this like the fact that malnutrition directly reduces fertility. So if we graph population vs time, there's going to be a trend, but it'll look a lot like a relatively low amplitude sine wave. You'd only see sharps shifts after something like a plague.