←back to thread

430 points mhb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
etothepii ◴[] No.46180954[source]
Being stationary and cultivating grains allows a surplus that is much harder to achieve with hunting.

This allows the formation of a priest class that can tell you what the sky father wants you to do.

They may have had to but it need not be because it led to more calories for them.

replies(3): >>46181013 #>>46183304 #>>46193389 #
1. DoctorOetker ◴[] No.46193389{4}[source]
I am not claiming nomadic hunter gatherer societies were safe spaces, but there is a recurring misconception: people assume the nomadic lifestyle was harder and less desirable, otherwise humans wouldn't have made the transition to agrarian society.

Could perhaps slavery possibly be the bigger reason agrarian lifestyle "outcompeted" the nomadic lifestyle?

It's easy to proclaim a higher mean life quality in agrarian society if we discount the lives of the slaves.

With nomadic tribes, there is a constant churn of neighbor tribes, so hypothetical nomadic slavery would be much easier to escape than say the Roman Empire, where only near the boundaries of the Empire one might durably escape.

In an agrarian society neighboring villages etc use the same kinds of marks to discriminate the slaves from the citizens, so even if you escaped your master and the village, you'd end up needing to pass countless other villages which would recognize your assigned status, and turn you in for some reward / improved bilateral relations / ...

Today countless research indicates that permaculture, agroforestry, etc. are more productive than monoculture.

It is perfectly possible for nomadic cultures to be more efficient, and to provide more free time (a dangerous thing, since infighting and warring takes time), yet be "outcompeted" by systems of slavery!

For the leaders (of either nomadic tribes, or agrarian empires), the agrarian empire affords much more fruits of course!