Remaining life expectancy at age 18 was even lower in 1800 or 1700, from what I can tell. You can find small exceptions (like aristocrats in particular countries) but I'm not aware of any large (50,000 people or more) preindustrial population where the average teenager could expect to die older than age 60. I would be delighted to see counterexamples.
EDIT: This was interesting.
"Lifespans of the European Elite, 800–1800". It examines the lifespans of European aristocrats over the thousand years prior to the Industrial Revolution. It limits its analysis to people who reached at least 20 years of age. Per Figure 8, the average lifespan remained below 60 in the entire time period.
I wonder what pre-agricultural lifespans were like? I read recently that humans were significantly taller and healthier before agriculture, due to getting nutrition from many sources rather than a few crops. I expect they were much lower than in the cities, despite the nutritional advantage.
"The sample of premodern populations shows an average modal adult life span of about 72 years, with a range of 68-78 years (Table 4). While modal age at death is not the same as the effective end of the life span, because modal age refers to a peak in the distribution of deaths, it may reflect an important stage in physiological decline. [...]
"Our approach is to assess and analyze available demographic data on extant hunter gatherers and forager-horticulturalists (i.e. peoples who mix hunting and gathering with swidden agriculture). In order to understand the processes that shaped the evolution of our life course, it would be useful to have data on mortality and fertility profiles across populations and over evolutionary time. Given that these data do not exist, we utilize and critically evaluate data on modern groups, as one ‘imperfect lens’ into our past." [1]
[1] Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Longevity among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination. Population and Development Review, 33(2), 321-365. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/25434609
Probably short. Putting aside predation, disease and starvation, there is evidence (see Pinker) that violent death was a common way to go in nomadic tribes.
Violent death was common, sure, but not necessarily more so in pre-agricultural times. See e.g. the early chapters of "Sapiens" (Yuval Harari). Agricultural revolution led to lower standard of living, increased risk of starvation (feast-or-famine dependence on fragile harvest), increased health issues (less-varied diet, also disease rampant in denser populations), and whereas in the presence of potentially hostile competition nomadic hunter-gatherers could choose to move, farmers would logically choose to stay and fight rather than leave the farm and almost certainly die. The agricultural revolution was a pretty bad deal for most people for most of the time since it began.
> See e.g. the early chapters of "Sapiens" (Yuval Harari).
This part of Harari's book have been debunked quite a few times already: his views of pre-agricultural are romanticized and doesn't match with the work of the specialists of this period. (While Harari is indeed an historian, he's a specialist of medieval times and has little authority on early-humans history).
Btw, I'm not even disagreing with you about agriculture, I just wanted to point out that quoting Harari on that has really little value.
Thanks, @littlestymar. To me, Harari's take seems more neutral than "romanticized". I share his skepticism of those who claim concrete knowledge of aspects of pre-literate human culture at which, logically, one can only guess or imagine. This might counter your point about his relative expertise / authority for that time period.
That said, I'm no historian, just a layperson who found Harari's work (so far -- I haven't yet finished "Sapiens") thought-provoking and interesting. In the relevant early chapters his perspective is refreshingly different from the norm -- in some ways comparable (for me) to Zinn's "A People's History of the US", in that it provides a PoV sufficiently removed from the standard narrative to serve as a reminder of how shallow and incomplete any one-sided version of events must be. The GP's citing of Pinker likely belongs in this camp, too: referencing an author whose ideas have merit (eg Pinker's computational theory in "How the Mind Works"), independent of their ultimate status as authoritative works.
> whereas in the presence of potentially hostile competition nomadic hunter-gatherers could choose to move, farmers would logically choose to stay and fight rather than leave the farm and almost certainly die
You might think this, but the historical pattern -- everywhere -- is that farmers stay where they are and get conquered by more mobile non-farmers. They don't so much fight as submit.
The farmers won. Why would they choose to farm if there were no advantages?
What happened was that farming was so successful that the human population boomed. When famine did occur, it caused more deaths because there were more humans.
Farming societies are more hierarchical and have more people. For the ones in charge that is for sure advantageous.
Also it’s a bit of a trap: as soon as you switch over you cannot go back, as foraging cannot sustain as many people. You will have to constantly expand to feed the growing population.
The work of Pinker you refer to has been thoroughly debunked as pseudoscience -- the concrete point about nomadic tribes may or may not stand, regardless, of course.
I’ve heard lots of substantive criticism of Enlightenment Now, but less of The Better Angels of Our Nature. Do you have sources to rebut the latter? I read Better Angels, and some associated reviews, and most of the critical reviews seemed to stipulate all the facts in the book and were left to express sour grapes, or a hang-up with the perceived idea of de Chardin-esque progress (which I don’t think Pinker was advocating; he was clear he believed in the factors, and that those factors were not inevitable or inexorable).
There was a long back and forth between Pinker and NN Taleb. To me it seemed that Pinker didn't properly address any of Taleb's concrete critical points.
Hunter gatherer cultures don't have as many issues with disease spread because of the low population density. If your little community has a couple dozen people, even a 100% morality rate doesn't tend to spread past the couple dozen. Plagues really require high density agricultural societies.
This isn't true. Most studies of virgin soil epidemics have been in modern foragers and all of the "common" agents I could think of in a minute (Y. pestis, tuberculosis, smallpox, malaria...) evolved long before agriculture was invented.
>Since they lived in small groups and moved frequently, they had few problems with accumulating waste or contaminated water or food.
>The shift from the hunter-gather mode of living to an agricultural model provided a more secure supply of food and enabled expansion of the population. However, domesticated animals provided not only food and labor; they also carried diseases that could be transmitted to humans. People also began to rely heavily on one or two crops, so their diets were often lacking in protein, minerals, and vitamins
>Rodents and insect vectors were attracted to human settlements, providing a means of spreading disease.
That page is intended for a lay audience. I'm not sure a single sentence of the first paragraph is correct. Everything from the dates to the statements about mobility and nutrition are questionable or plainly incorrect.
Instead, here's Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers. From the 2nd ed., p. 200 on disease:
> An important cause of childhood death in many forager societies are infectious and parasitic diseases, including respiratory tuberculosis (TB), influenza, pneumonia, bronchitis, and diarrheal diseases resulting in dehydration.
> Among the Dobe Ju/’hoansi, disease, especially TB and malaria, account for 85 percent of childhood deaths ... and violence for 8 percent.
> Infectious disease (with most deaths occurring among infants and juveniles) accounts for 85–95 percent of Agta deaths
One weakness of current literature is that the mechanism by which adults get sick (contact with other adults) is radically different for living foragers than our paleolithic ancestors. With that said, the fact that we still have these epidemic diseases with us today demonstrates that they were able to survive in ancient populations (excepting plague, which is resident in marmots and only "accidentally" infectious to humans). Perhaps larger regional group sizes and a functioning long-distance forager trade network helped these diseases to survive where they struggle today, but survive they clearly did.
Problem with that is that pre-agriculture you cannot sustain a large number of people, so it is very doubtful that the population could sustain themselves better than with agriculture.
Why would a super healthy pre-agricultural society move to agriculture if it was doing worse than before.
Because for individuals making rational decisions, tending to crops and livestock is easier than hunting and gathering, and it won't necessarily be obvious over the timescale of a lifeapan that such a lifestyle is detrimental to health, especially if you're talking about a pre-scientific, pre-literate society with no real form of record keeping.
Plus, the shift is going to be gradual - you start by supplementing with a small garden, a handful of captive prey animals during hard times, then after some number of generations you come to rely more and more on agriculture without necessarily realizing why or even if your tribe is showing minor signs of mysterious illness. And then if you do realize that something is up, you're probably cursing the earth/gods/demons for your illnesses, rather than coming to understand the true variety required in a healthy diet and abandoning the convenience of your farming practices, which are in no way an obvious problem.
Tending crops is not easier than hunting. Especially in the early Neolithic when bronze hasn't even been discovered yet. But even today, farming is tougher than hunting. The difference is that farming and animal husbandry scales tremendously well. Predators regularly die off in the prey-predator cycle. Agriculture when done right and under favorable climates is predictable and scalable.
Pick between spearing a bison or gazelle with a rock tip, or harvesting from a small plot of not quite domesticated, hardy crop that you just scattered somewhere fertile, and putting off the hunt for a few more days. Or a proto-goat you keep tied up somewhere where it can graze.
It's a gradual process and has immediate benefits even on a small scale with relatively low investment. Consider also that women were probably not hunting, and probably had some spare time when they weren't gathering/taking care of kids or what have you. It's pretty easy for a community of Hunter gatherers to have occasional free time, if you look at data from more recent tribes from the last hundred years or so. Plus there's all kinds of art and such...simple crop rearing and basic animal raising isn't hard to imagine.
A Bison will feed a whole tribe for a month. You can only harvest most crops once a year. Veggies don't bloom all the time. By 10K years ago, humans had already invented the bow and arrow. They also had other clever techniques. Definitely worth the risk. The modern crops we eat today didn't even exist in the wild. It took thousands of years of selective breeding to get modern vegetables and tubers. Throwing seeds is NOT enough to grow real crops in any amount that will actually feed anyone, especially the kind of crops that were around 10K years ago. Farming takes a fuck ton of work. You have to water them, you have to fertilize them, you have to defend them from other animals, you have to weed out other plants competing with it for resources. It's not a simple thing. It's back breaking labor. There's a reason why 90+% of the population were farmers until the invention of gas engines, automated harvesters, electricity, etc.
>Throwing seeds is NOT enough to grow real crops in any amount that will actually feed anyone, especially the kind of crops that were around 10K years ago.
Yes, that was one of my points. The initially farmed plants were fully wild and hardy enough that they probably could be grown just by scattering seeds around.
>Farming takes a fuck ton of work. You have to water them, you have to fertilize them, you have to defend them from other animals, you have to weed out other plants competing with it for resources. It's not a simple thing. It's back breaking labor. There's a reason why 90+% of the population were farmers until the invention of gas engines, automated harvesters, electricity, etc.
Again, we're not talking modern, large scale optimized farming of GMO crops that would not survive without human care. We're talking about small, gradually expanding plots of almost wild, and therefore low maintenance, supplemental crops, that over generations become a larger and larger part of diet. How else do you think farming started?
A bison will feed a whole tribe for a month, sure, but it can also take tribe members with it, especially with your stone tipped, non compound bows. If you happen across an unusually supportive yield of whatever semi wild tubers you planted and basically forgot about, there's no reason a human wouldn't put off a dangerous hunt.
Anyway, the original question was why Hunter gatherers started farming if it were bad for them. I'm trying to show how it's possible for that to have happened. I'm not sure what you're arguing, that farming could not have occurred in any beneficial capacity before combines? Have you ever had a vegetable garden? Hardly backbreaking work if you're lucky enough to have good soil and the right climate for whatever you're growing...
Again, this is a gradual process. Hell, I can think of a modern analogue that I've picked myself, the blue Camas plant that grows all over the PNW in patches. It doesn't take much work once you've figured out you can plant them yourself next to your cave/camp.
Well I agree with you on the point of crops starting as supplements and then gradually becoming a more significant part of the diet and especially after the climate shifted from the last glacial period to the early Holocene warmth.
Even just 3-6 adult human men with spears is a force to be reckoned with in the animal kingdom. They're capable of strategizing, trapping, corralling, etc. Also, animals weren't just used for food in the stone age, the bones were used for structures, tools, etc. The leather was used for clothing, warmth, huts, etc. Humans certainly continued to hunt in the early days of agriculture.
It probably was the case that other humans less capable of hunting due to higher risk and lower strength (elderly, women, children, injured, etc) gathered and tended crops to contribute to the tribe.
Like you say, agriculture gradually got more and more efficient. Better tools, better breeding, etc, and the tribes that grew crops and raised animals were able to feed more people than the ones that hunted and gathered alone. This intensified after the bronze age.
Agriculture is beneficial because it causes abundance and predictability, even if it is more work on average. It's a ton of work to produce even 430,000 kCal of veggies (the amount found in a single modern cow), especially with early breeds of potatoes (which were tiny). I would wager that if you did the energy spent vs energy acquired calculation that hunting comes out way ahead of farming.
With farming you have to plan ahead for months at a time. The difference is that agriculture manifests abundant energy for consumption that would otherwise not exist. That's a huge evolutionary advantage, and obviously the entire reason we're able to have this discussion hundreds of miles apart from each other at instantaneous speed.
There's a strong survivorship bias here - the uncontacted tribes tend to be in places that are isolated, and are unsuitable for agriculture or mining. I'm not sure we can infer much about the pre-agricultural lives of people in more normal environments from observing these groups.
Wouldn't we at least be able to derive some data about child mortality and spread of disease and such? Admittedly some of this would be guesswork if they are truly uncontacted and only surveilled and surveyed remotely.
I think you need to move further back. Civilization accounted for a sharp decline in life expectancy due to disease and other factors like extreme agricultural labor. Humans have only gained back what was lost since the industrial and technological revolutions.
Extant hunter gatherers, living without access to modern medicine, have been studied to show life expectancy closer to 70.
This is doubtful. All the research I've seen points to very different story. One example:
"the expected annual probability of death for a 65-y-old hunter-gatherer is about 5.3%; in contrast, for 65-y-olds in Japan today, the chance of death is only about 0.8%.
The figure for Japanese elderly today reflects a life expectancy in the 80s. There's nothing weird about a mortality rate of 5% at 65 corresponding to a life expectancy close to 70.
I couldn't downvote jly's reply to me even if I wanted to. I didn't upvote it either though. It doesn't cite any evidence and it appeared to be incorrect when I searched for evidence on my own.
See for example: Gurven, M., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Longevity Among Hunter-Gatherers: A Cross-Cultural Examination.
Population and Development Review, 33(2), 321–365.
For the longest living group estimate, 5 year olds can expect to live to ~54, 10 year olds to 55, and even 20 year olds only have a life expectancy of 60. Life expectancy only starts approaching 70 for a hunter-gatherer who survived into his 40s.
This would put life expectancy of young adult hunter-gatherers ahead of that of young adults living in historical agricultural societies, but behind that of those living in highly developed countries in the last several decades. The life expectancy of people living in developed countries today has more than "gained back what was lost since the industrial and technological revolutions."
[1] Enter DOI into sci-hub for full text.
[2] The link to the full text of the PDF in that Reddit post is now broken, which is why I noted the DOI.
EDIT: This was interesting.
"Lifespans of the European Elite, 800–1800". It examines the lifespans of European aristocrats over the thousand years prior to the Industrial Revolution. It limits its analysis to people who reached at least 20 years of age. Per Figure 8, the average lifespan remained below 60 in the entire time period.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-...