Hunter-gatherers' work was play
Claims that hunter-gatherers treated subsistence activities as playful, part-time work prompt debate over how their lives really compared to modern wage labor. Commenters contrast Graeber’s idea of “bullshit jobs” and overwork in capitalist societies with anthropological data suggesting foragers often had more leisure, but others stress high rates of violence, infanticide, disease, and lack of medical care. The exchange broadens into a critique of romanticizing “noble savages” and of idealizing modernity, asking whether technological affluence, security, and bureaucracy are worth the ecological damage, inequality, and alienation many associate with contemporary work.
Nature of Hunter‑Gatherer “Work” vs Play
- Several commenters accept the article’s claim that foragers often did ~30–40 hours/week of subsistence plus chores and had substantial social/leisure time, calling them an “affluent” society with modest wants.
- Others argue this blurs the line between work and play: hunting, gathering, tool‑making and camp chores are still survival‑critical work, even if social or varied.
Hardship: Hunger, Disease, Violence
- One side stresses that pre‑agricultural life involved frequent hunger, injuries, infections, and high mortality; “play” under constant life‑and‑death stakes is questioned.
- Opponents respond that severe famine and dense‑population disease are more associated with agriculture; they claim hunter‑gatherers often had abundant resources and moved when local food declined.
- There is sharp disagreement over evidence for “constant malnutrition” and famine: bone/tooth data vs cross‑cultural studies that find less famine among foragers than farmers (when controlling for habitat).
- Violence is also disputed. Some cite research suggesting very high proportions of violent deaths and even hereditary slavery among foragers; others counter that large‑scale organized warfare and extreme atrocities scale up with agricultural states and modern technology, while proportional rates remain contested.
Modern Work, “Bullshit Jobs,” and Capitalism
- Many posters connect the article to “bullshit jobs” and alienated modern labor: work seen as pointless, harmful, or captured by elites, with people longing for meaningful, embodied tasks.
- Others argue that as long as someone voluntarily pays, the work has value; focusing on metaphysical meaning is framed as a privilege enabled by modern comforts and safety.
Agriculture, Population, and Trade‑offs
- Some describe agriculture as a “mistake” that increased toil, inequality, coercion, and large‑scale war, while letting agricultural societies outcompete foragers.
- Others emphasize benefits: far fewer people starving in wealthy countries, medical care, shelter, and longer lives, even if many modern diseases are byproducts of civilization and processed food.
Romanticization, Gender, and Bias
- Multiple commenters criticize “noble savage” romanticism and note that many forager groups practiced polygyny, bride‑price, and severe gender inequality.
- Others accuse the article and some critics alike of projecting modern values—either idealizing simplicity or defending “noble modernity.”
- Personal anecdotes of hunting, homesteading, and wilderness work highlight how survival‑linked activities can feel deeply meaningful, but critics stress the difference between elective “larp” and having no safety net.