gatherers

But in the case of the hunter-gatherers a person is not working for someone else who will then provide him sustenance.

If hunter-gatherers didn't want more then logically they would have stayed hunter-gatherers.

As if hunter-gatherers in the paleolithic era could drop by a grocery store and buy themselves a jar of oil.

This will cost essentially nothing and will allow people to live as hunter gatherers.

This reminds me of a bit I heard recently about early British hunter-gatherers and the transition to agriculture.

I would also like to point out that studies show early agricultural societies had notably worse health than hunter-gatherers.

Lacose tolerance apparently allowed middle-eastern nomads to wipe out and replace the native european hunter-gatherers, and set up an agricultural society in their place.

Hunter-gatherers were replaced by massively-reproducing (but probably unhappy & unhealthy) farmers.

As far as I am aware, by every measure hunter-gatherers had better lives than the vast majority of farmers until very recently.

If people didn't depend on things they didn't control, the economy would probably collapse and we'd all be hunters and gatherers again.

Hunter gatherers are grouped together in bands, not tribes.

In nature when you look at early hunter-gatherers or tribes you see relatively flat structures with maybe one leader and everyone else being more or less equal.

Hunter Gatherers also find a strength and safety in numbers, even if only in avoiding the fatility of personal "catastrophes" like a broken limb.

Hunter-gatherers are "very poor", but don't have a population explosion problem.

For a few thoughts on this (and at least what may be a framework for an approach to solutions) I hope you'll see my post "How would hunter-gatherers rule the world?