For hundreds of thousands of years, we spent 2 or 3 hours a day hunting and gathering, then chilled out and had fun the rest of the time. That’s what our bodies are designed for.
Those numbers are off, and there’s some studies showing that what people simplify to “chilling out” was also work, just done in groups back at the settlement. For example, preparing the animal you caught for eating, using the tools of the era, takes time. Unfortunately there are a lot of people understanding only the bare bones cliffnotes of historic life, then using it as fuel for their (justified but somewhat misinformed) campaign against the workload expected of us in modern life.
That said, the general take away is correct: humans used to be far more active in the completion of their daily duties.
The ‘age of 38’ thing isn’t even due to infection ir disease, or even a thing at all. 38 was the average between the high number of infant deaths and the normal lifespan of someone who didn’t.
Ok, women giving birth skewed it a bit too. Men didn’t die in battle as much as people think, since most battles were decided when a small portion of the losing side died and the rest fled.
Do we have numbers for the hunter-gatherer time that can even be skewed by infant deaths?
Edit: as it turns out, yes, absolutely. Wikipedia says the lifespan is around 21-37 years but 57% died before 15 and 64% of those that don’t would also reach 45.
Yeah, mid twenties to mid thirties tends to be the peak of human health and physcial fitness which would be true no matter what conditions are, so it would make sense that disease, accidents, and other trauma would be far less fatal during those ages.
For hundreds of thousands of years, we spent 2 or 3 hours a day hunting and gathering, then chilled out and had fun the rest of the time. That’s what our bodies are designed for.
I was hoping you would say “unnaturally contorted in a desk chair for 8-10 hours per day”
Those numbers are off, and there’s some studies showing that what people simplify to “chilling out” was also work, just done in groups back at the settlement. For example, preparing the animal you caught for eating, using the tools of the era, takes time. Unfortunately there are a lot of people understanding only the bare bones cliffnotes of historic life, then using it as fuel for their (justified but somewhat misinformed) campaign against the workload expected of us in modern life.
That said, the general take away is correct: humans used to be far more active in the completion of their daily duties.
Back when we lived to the ripe old age of 38.
(Im kidding, I know that was mostly due to infection and whatnot)
The ‘age of 38’ thing isn’t even due to infection ir disease, or even a thing at all. 38 was the average between the high number of infant deaths and the normal lifespan of someone who didn’t.
Ok, women giving birth skewed it a bit too. Men didn’t die in battle as much as people think, since most battles were decided when a small portion of the losing side died and the rest fled.
Do we have numbers for the hunter-gatherer time that can even be skewed by infant deaths?
Edit: as it turns out, yes, absolutely. Wikipedia says the lifespan is around 21-37 years but 57% died before 15 and 64% of those that don’t would also reach 45.
Yeah, mid twenties to mid thirties tends to be the peak of human health and physcial fitness which would be true no matter what conditions are, so it would make sense that disease, accidents, and other trauma would be far less fatal during those ages.