| ▲ | JackFr 20 hours ago | |||||||||||||
When all of humanity was hunting and gathering and living at subsistence levels, the was no poverty. It only shows up with wealth. Pretty simple. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | DoctorOetker 16 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||
This. Every sedentary society has historically scared its members of the dangers of the nomadic lifestyle, heathens, ... The implied conclusion being that since our ancestors switched from nomadic to sedentary it must have been preferable, a kind of informal democratic collectively and individually approved choice. Surely sedentary must have been better, how else could such a transition have been sustained? Rather easy how else: its perfectly possible for average or mean life quality under sedentary lifestyle to be a net setback compared to nomadic lifestyle, since slavery can't be effectively implemented in a nomadic lifestyle, whereas the sedentary lifestyle creates both the demand for labor (routine monotonous work in the fields) and the means to enable slavery (escaping nomadic tribes under Brownian motion is much easier than escaping from a randomly assigned position deep in a larger sedentary empire, even if you escape the sedentary village, the stable neighbouring village will happily return you to "your owner" so that he would hopefully return the favor if ever he catches one of "their slaves"). It's easy to claim a net improvement in life quality ... by discounting the loss of life quality of the slaves! Nomadic lifestyle was simply outcompeted by sedentary-enabled slavery! | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||