Neither of these numbers sound great. Living past 80 sounds a lot better to me. Why did pre-agricultural communities have early deaths compared to us if “the ills that you highlight all came about following the establishment of agricultural societies”? They had to die somehow.
This is almost entirely driven by decreases in infant mortality. The article specifically cites the scenario of a mother giving birth while still carrying their last would probably have abandoned that child. Life expectancy for those that reached adulthood was nearly 70, roughly the same as world average now.
Also, using “life expectancy” as defined by present society seems biased. Does it really make sense to include infanticide in life expectancy in hunter-gather societies, but not include abortions in modern ones, where it’s functionally the same thing? (this is not a moral judgment of either)
Ultimately though you are right that humans now do, to some degree, have longer lives than pre-agricultural humans. Evaluating this will come down to a personal choice between quality and quantity.
So people in rich countries are better off. Then the question becomes “Will the poor countries stay poor?” If they don’t, his whole argument is wrong. (Also the “Everyone’s poor, so there’s no inequality! Hurray!” argument is a bit strange.) I’ll bet that before China’s wealth increase, he would have said China would stay poor.
The quote you snip says that the rich in agricultural societies live better than the underclass in those same societies, not better than hunter-gatherer societies.
How are you defining “poor” and why is it bad? How can one argue that people who only need to work ~15 hours per week are “poor”. That is far richer than most the world today. The absence of gold or iPhones says nothing about the human condition.
Why is he assuming that had those same people stayed hunter-gathers, they would treat their women better? It seems like a completely unwarranted assumption.
The anthropological evidence (mostly observation of present day hunter-gatherer groups) indicates that hunter-gatherer groups have high levels of gender equality. Resource accumulation enabled by agriculture leading to gender imbalances is a possible explanation of this pattern.
You’re also neglecting the massive population increases that he discusses. An extra life worth living is a net gain. The associated decreases in average wellbeing haven’t held up because of better nutritional science and healthcare so there’s not even a “repugnant conclusion” trade-off.
This is a different question entirely, evaluating the world as a whole instead of the average individual experience. It’s quite possible that the increase in quantity of life that has arisen is or will become “worth it”.
This is almost entirely driven by decreases in infant mortality. The article specifically cites the scenario of a mother giving birth while still carrying their last would probably have abandoned that child. Life expectancy for those that reached adulthood was nearly 70, roughly the same as world average now.
I have wondered how that factored into life expectancy. This is a good point.
The quote you snip says that the rich in agricultural societies live better than the underclass in those same societies, not better than hunter-gatherer societies.
Incorrect, that quote is ambiguous about whether they are better off compared to pre-agriculture. However, he also says
Thus with the advent of agriculture the elite became better off, but most people became worse off.
Which is important to match with his classing of most of the U.S. as “elite”. He’s explicitly saying that if you live in the U.S. today, you are probably better off. That’s why I said his argument rests on the poorer countries staying poor.
How are you defining “poor” and why is it bad? How can one argue that people who only need to work ~15 hours per week are “poor”. That is far richer than most the world today. The absence of gold or iPhones says nothing about the human condition.
Poverty is obviously a continuum and relative to the context. But my definition is that poorer people have fewer choices, including what goods they can attain, and including how many hours they work. You can live without all the technology and entertainment today if you want. For that life, 15 hours of work per week can be enough if you have a spouse that does the same. (Minimum wage in Australia is enough for that.) If you’re a medium-income earner, you can work half of that. Though, admittedly, if you are a middle-income earner probably can’t find a job that lets you work that much. But you can retire earlier having done less “total lifetime work”. I imagine pre-agricultural people work well into old age.
The anthropological evidence (mostly observation of present day hunter-gatherer groups) indicates that hunter-gatherer groups have high levels of gender equality.
That’s surprising to me, and shifts me towards that conclusion.
This is a different question entirely, evaluating the world as a whole instead of the average individual experience. It’s quite possible that the increase in quantity of life that has arisen is or will become “worth it”.
It’s not the original question, but is it relevant: Assuming that people were better off back then, what should we do about it today? The answer: nothing.
You’ve changed my view quite a bit, but I’d still easily prefer to live now (albeit in a rich country).
“Almost entirely driven by decreases in infant mortality” is exaggerated. Infant mortality was ~20% and childhood mortality (under age 5) was ~50%. Yes, a lot of the increase came from childhood mortality, but life expectancy increased at every age.
(Also, I don’t have time to dig into it now, but I am skeptical of the “15 hours” stat for hunter-gatherers.)
Note that life expectancy at 50 and the gap between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at 1 year basically didn’t budge from 1850 to 1900, whereas life expectancy at birth jumped by 10 years over the same time range. I do think there are at least two distinct things going on (probably all of which are related to increased wealth and improved medical care).
This is almost entirely driven by decreases in infant mortality. The article specifically cites the scenario of a mother giving birth while still carrying their last would probably have abandoned that child. Life expectancy for those that reached adulthood was nearly 70, roughly the same as world average now.
Also, using “life expectancy” as defined by present society seems biased. Does it really make sense to include infanticide in life expectancy in hunter-gather societies, but not include abortions in modern ones, where it’s functionally the same thing? (this is not a moral judgment of either)
Ultimately though you are right that humans now do, to some degree, have longer lives than pre-agricultural humans. Evaluating this will come down to a personal choice between quality and quantity.
The quote you snip says that the rich in agricultural societies live better than the underclass in those same societies, not better than hunter-gatherer societies.
How are you defining “poor” and why is it bad? How can one argue that people who only need to work ~15 hours per week are “poor”. That is far richer than most the world today. The absence of gold or iPhones says nothing about the human condition.
The anthropological evidence (mostly observation of present day hunter-gatherer groups) indicates that hunter-gatherer groups have high levels of gender equality. Resource accumulation enabled by agriculture leading to gender imbalances is a possible explanation of this pattern.
This is a different question entirely, evaluating the world as a whole instead of the average individual experience. It’s quite possible that the increase in quantity of life that has arisen is or will become “worth it”.
I have wondered how that factored into life expectancy. This is a good point.
Incorrect, that quote is ambiguous about whether they are better off compared to pre-agriculture. However, he also says
Which is important to match with his classing of most of the U.S. as “elite”. He’s explicitly saying that if you live in the U.S. today, you are probably better off. That’s why I said his argument rests on the poorer countries staying poor.
Poverty is obviously a continuum and relative to the context. But my definition is that poorer people have fewer choices, including what goods they can attain, and including how many hours they work. You can live without all the technology and entertainment today if you want. For that life, 15 hours of work per week can be enough if you have a spouse that does the same. (Minimum wage in Australia is enough for that.) If you’re a medium-income earner, you can work half of that. Though, admittedly, if you are a middle-income earner probably can’t find a job that lets you work that much. But you can retire earlier having done less “total lifetime work”. I imagine pre-agricultural people work well into old age.
That’s surprising to me, and shifts me towards that conclusion.
It’s not the original question, but is it relevant: Assuming that people were better off back then, what should we do about it today? The answer: nothing.
You’ve changed my view quite a bit, but I’d still easily prefer to live now (albeit in a rich country).
“Almost entirely driven by decreases in infant mortality” is exaggerated. Infant mortality was ~20% and childhood mortality (under age 5) was ~50%. Yes, a lot of the increase came from childhood mortality, but life expectancy increased at every age.
(Also, I don’t have time to dig into it now, but I am skeptical of the “15 hours” stat for hunter-gatherers.)
Note that life expectancy at 50 and the gap between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at 1 year basically didn’t budge from 1850 to 1900, whereas life expectancy at birth jumped by 10 years over the same time range. I do think there are at least two distinct things going on (probably all of which are related to increased wealth and improved medical care).