lack of hierarchy, equity in the group, living for today, sense of timelessness (resulting in low stress) are the hallmarks of a hunter-gathers lifestyle

@acmulhern

4 жыл бұрын

Abhijit Banerjee and then we wonder why we have such stressful and unfulfilling lives. No wonder, we couldn't live lives further removed from what we should be.

@EvilThoughtsBaby

3 жыл бұрын

@mary the sun death rate is high due to high child mortality. What data is there on murder rates? Is that higher than in today's society?

@Uri18

3 жыл бұрын

@@EvilThoughtsBaby Mexico had a large population of hunter gatherers on it's north east territories expanding all the way to southern texas. Hundreds of groups, it's impossible to know the answer to your question with any certainty, based on the evidence left. However, the high number of people who managed to resist the spanish rule for more than 200 years and the fact that they didn't kill each other out of existence for more than 8,000 years before first contact with europeans. Makes me think, murder did not have a high impact. There is evidence of infanticide among unmarried women. Based on the higher need for population control.

@m33LLS

3 жыл бұрын

@Mathijs Koenraadt no source

8 years old: I hate humanities. Humanities is the worst. 11 years old: Humanities is the best. It’s better than Xbox.

An unfortunate comment towards the end: “Humanity isn't like hunter-gatherers but humanity can be like hunter-gatherers”. Thus, implying hunter-gatherers are NOT within the fellowship of human beings. A better term may be to refer to the "us" in mind as an agriculturalists civilization or "food producers" - there is a difference in the method of securing food. No human is outside humanity.

Enjoyed the video but detected both idealist/ideological influence and that's okay, I expect that from youth. That said, I am certain we could learn and benefit greatly from hunter gatherers.

He could have mentioned that people always live in families. They are surrounded by neighbouring families. These families are related to eachother trough marriages. That is what is called a band or a tribe when its a much bigger group. Suppose you would go camping with your family and with the families that are related to you by mariages,

12:35 oh wow

So if you gave the ring of power to Frodo of the hunter gatherers, he would just pass it around to any of the members and trust everyone would remain equal?

@m33LLS

3 жыл бұрын

If he didn't share he would be kicked out of the group. Or the others would walk away from him. He is nothing, alone in nature.

@argenisjimenez8118

2 жыл бұрын

@@m33LLS the problem is were few people concentrate enough power to rule over the others. Ans those others wouldn't leave since these could mean a disadvantage. People dont leave to live of the land because society helps to satisfy the humans needs.

the ultimate minimalists

In such a condition, it was the quest for self-preservation that dictated the lives of individuals and based on their personal judgments individuals were entering into an all-out war with one another

@alfreddaniels3817

Жыл бұрын

Proven to be not at all. People always live in families surrounded by friendly other families that are related through marriages.

I'm fascinated by my own flatulence.

I keep hearing from different anthropologists that "hunter/gatherers are monogamous" and then some say "hunter/gatherers are polyamorous". WTF xD

i LOVED our hunter gathers !!!

@Nico18_

3 жыл бұрын

Nothing is "our"

Nobody will influence like a teacher.

Most of these Tribes that exist today were very isolated from the rest of civilisation. Perhaps this caused them to be peaceful? War was often fought for food. Land gave food. And villages often hunted as well as farmed. Yet hunting didn't wield a lot and was often dangerous. The fact that no one fought over each other makes me question if humans are part of the animal kingdom at all and are some divine creature that is the embodiment of peace In the book the war before civilisation He said war was was the norm and peaceful Tribes were the exception. Typically isolated nomadic Tribes. Like today. Which gives us our warped sense of view of ancient tribal life That we automatically take as truth because we are so desperate to believe that humans are very rarely dictated from nature and we can socialise them to be the perfect communist society But here is my question? Why were they peaceful? Why did suddenly the rise of agriculture that people became warlike? Were people not fighting over food before? No starvation? No food or hunting spots other Tribes were using to survive? Greed never existed? No one was trying to survive? Was life a garden of Eden? Filled with abundance of food and water and fruits. Never going hungry or struggling to find food? Never fighting over food and hunting spots with other Tribes? If so I am surprised they survived and all didn't die out of starvation. From what I read. People struggled for food. Hunting and gathering was not a reliable way to get staple amounts of food. Which was why they often moved And other Tribes were just happy that some unknown tribe started to hunt and take food from areas they were using? I read about Australian Tribes. And Tribes often distrusted each other. Food was fought over. agriculture brought multitudes of food that hunters and gatherers couldn't normally get. It united people through the concept of kingdoms. If agriculture brought more problems and war. Why would people eagerly accept it? Why wouldn't they go back? There are armish and old agricultural areas that still don't accept technology (the amish have a few exceptions) Yet they are peaceful. So war never really happened in the agricultural Times? U see the point. The rest of the world has moved on. And war with it. Since Tribes are a rarity they obviously not going to constantly fight each other over food Plus they have lots of contact with civilisation and barter. So this could have influenced them? Could it not? Population increased. And so did the average life expectancy. They didn't have to worry about constant attacks from animals. So suddenly during a time where food was incredibly hard to get a stable supply of. Everyone was peaceful and lived in harmony and no heirachies? (there was hierarchies. Just not political or economical. There were competince heirachies. Someone who was competent in a field was more highly looked upon.) And suddenly the dark ages of agriculture brought death and war and hatred and greed. And many cultures were war like. There are thousands of archaeological bones dating back of men covered in what looks like to be wounds from weapons. All across Africa, Asia, Europe and the americas. There is also the book Demonic Males Book by Dale Peterson and Richard Wrangham I get the feeling u hope that a utopian society is possible and ur looking for one in Tribes to confirm it. Tribes in hunter gatherer societies obviously are very different today than they were thousands of years ago. Typically because these ones have lived away from the progression. Of other Tribes and civilisations. And war often brings advancement. The desire to be able to have more advantage or survival chance over ur peers. Like when the ottomans surrounded the byzantine in constantinople. An engineer came to the emporer and said he would build him a bronze canon that can break any wall. He couldn't afford it and so he went to the ottomans. The ottomans grew wealthy from the lands they conquered. People ate and slept with bellies of food. If hunter gatherers never had this problem. Then why change their ways?

@gangadharanm6124

5 жыл бұрын

if you have read " homosapiens; a breif history of mankind " , the author expressed agricultutal revolution brought more stress on people than hunter gatherer lifestyle. it would reveal more about human evolution.

@colerf

4 жыл бұрын

Some good points. Thank you for writing that.

@m33LLS

3 жыл бұрын

According to Harari, the agricultural revolution was a luxury trap. Once the abundance of food was there, more children were born and more mouths were to feed. This required more work, etc.

@davidregi7571

2 жыл бұрын

@@m33LLS yes

The question is simple: what are people's basic needs? The ability to provide it is the age old conundrum.

"Camping is spending alot of money to be homeless for a while" Hunter-gatherers: hold my fish!

I'm sorry but theres some stuff that are false, there are numerous hunter gatherer tribes with polygamous relationships. Yes woman sometimes hunt or fish this is true but they are not responsible for the hunt for big games, women only hunt small stuff near camps like rabbits for exemple. There are always division of work between the sexes. But this is normal due to biology, nothing immoral with that. What is true is yes they share everything. What is false is that it's not 100% equality, most of the time there's a chief of the village but he dosn't act like a boss he acts as a leader.

@cadethumann8605

Жыл бұрын

While I understand that men and women usually divided the tasks, I do wonder about overlapping aspects of their work. Like, how often did men assist with gathering and in what contexts? To what extant did women help with hunting? I can see some overlap, at least with some contexts. For instance, I can see a woman bringing a weapon for self-defense or if they found small game to bring back. With men, if they came across recognizable berries in their hunt, why not seize the opportunity to eat?

The hunter-gatherers of North Sentinelese island are so peaceful and non-xenophobic that whenever anyone from outside goes near their island, they shower them with peaceful, non-hierarchical arrows and show them the equity of death

I have no idea what is Mr. Janis Strods' point is. So what are people like? What is this question asking? He ends with this egalitarianism. Is he saying we should share everything with others? I recently heard another anthropologist talk about his research in hunter-gatherers. Because hunter-gatherer society is egalitarian each member is fiercely independent. Because hunter-gatherers are egalitarian they do not listen to others. They are fiercely independent. When there is a disagreement it leads to violence. In fact this other anthropologist says that violent death occur at a rate of 12% vs 1% for people who live in an large, sedentary agricultural society where you have hierarchy or institutions of authority where people can go to settle disputes. In hunter-gatherer society disputes escalate into violence and sometime deaths. Egalitarian hunter-gatherer are fiercely independent and they do not listen to other people who try to intervene to settle disputes. So is Mr. Janis Strods suggesting we should be more egalitarian and not allow an institution of authority to settle our disputes. To be egalitarian we should do what we want to do even if it leads to violence?

Polyamory and polyandry are options, too...!!! Game Theory made schizophrenia look better.... .....this talk makes Game Theory look bad, and maybe rightly so.

Nothing deep here. He said nothing different from an Anthropology 101 class, and he used half his time setting up his talk. Blah!

The idea that Hunter Gatherers were egalitarian with no status hierarchies is a complete fantasy. Give me a break.

@zuzuenhanced

3 жыл бұрын

So bring evidence of that to the academic world, because modern evidences of anthropology disagree totally with you.

My God you lefties never rest, do you?

worst speaker ever.