hunter-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.

Any anthropological study will tell you that hunter-gatherers are/were satisfied with what they could get.

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.

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

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.

I can believe that you had a major disorder that made meat not particularly good for you, but generally speaking we're omnivorous hunter-gatherers.

From what I read on hunter-gatherers they were very egalitarian - and there was no need for strict rules controlling every aspect of the life of the members.

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

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?

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