A small nitpick that doesn't take away from the rest of your comment: staying alive and fed was not necessarily a laborious activity for hunter-gatherers living in good climates [0]. It's our expansion into less hospitable environments that made it so.
> Woodburn offers this “very rough approximation” of subsistence-labor requirements: “Over the year as a whole, probably an average of less than two hours a day is spent obtaining food.”
> Reports on hunters and gatherers of the ethnological present--specifically on those in marginal environments--suggest a mean of three to five hours per adult worker per day in food production.
[0] https://fifthestate.anarchistlibraries.net/library/370-fall-...
The "original affluent society" theory is based on several false premises and is fundamentally outdated, but people keep it alive because it fits certain Rousseauean assumptions we have. I recommend reading this:
https://kk.org/mt-files/reCCearch-mt/kaplan-darker.pdf
There are so many things wrong with those time estimates.
I just read the 'original affluent society' and (most of) your linked essay, I kind of agree with you. That said, the conclusions of Kaplan lead to estimates or 35-60 hours a week (excluding some depending on the group) and that surprised me a lot. That's very different from the image I got from some other comments in this thread talking about extremely long days with constant back-breaking work. Would you agree?
Constant, backbreaking work was not a feature of hunter-gatherer societies in the way it was of early agricultural societies, yes; at the same time, they still worked equal to or longer hours than we did, at things we would likely consider quite grueling and boring (mostly food processing), and what they got out of it was a level of nutrition even they regularly considered inadequate; moreover, a lot of the reason the average per day work estimate is so low, as the paper covers briefly, is that there were very often times, especially during the winter, where food simply wasn't accessible, or during the summer, where it was so hot it was dangerous to work, so there was enforced idleness, but that's not the same thing as leisure.
Well don't just accuse, insinuate and link. Lay out a few actual assertions.
It's a detailed, complicated anthropological argument made by an expert — and he also does it in a very well-written way. I could attempt to lay out the argument myself, but ultimately everyone would be better served by just... reading the primary source, because I doubt I could do it sufficient justice. I recommend you actually just do the reading. But a general TLDR of the points made are:
- the estimates of how much time hunter-gatherers spent "working" were based on studies that either (a) watched hunter-gatherers in extremely atypical situations (no children, tiny band, few weeks during the most plentiful time of the year, and they were cajoled into traditional living from their usual mission-based lifestyle) or (b) didn't count all the work processing the food so it could even be cooked as time spent providing for subsistence, and when those hours are included, it's 35-60 hours a week of work even including times of enforced idleness pulling down the average
- the time estimates also counted enforced idleness from heat making it dangerous to work, or from lack of availability of food, or from diminishing returns, or from various "egalitarian" cultural cul de sacs, as "leisure" but at the same time...
- ... even the hunter gatherers themselves considered their diet insufficiently nutritious and often complained of being underfed, let alone the objective metrics showing that the were
The anthropological research that came up with 2-3 hours of work per day only looked at time spent away from camp gathering, hunting, and fishing. When you account for food processing, cooking, water collection, firewood gathering, tool making, shelter maintenance, and textile production the numbers go way up.
Yes, pretty much this. If they worked in the fields 12 hour per day as in a Victorian industrial setting, they would have perished from exposure, not having time to attend obligatory work around the house and to process the food and materials used to make food. Basically peasants worked all the time to maintain a level of "comfort" like in the article's picture: https://i0.wp.com/juliawise.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/S...
Also idealization of rural life and past rural life tends to come almost exclusively from city dwellers, basically people who never set foot in a rural area let alone grow or live there.
I grew up in rural Romania and even though the conditions were (and are) exponentially better than what the non-industrial non-mechanized non-chemical (herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers) past offered, all I thought growing up was get the funk out of there. Agriculture (and it's relatives, animal husbandry) sucks and I hate it! :)
And without mechanization it's incredibly labor intensive to tend to a farm. Just to keep the animals alive over winter you have to dry and deposit a lot of hay, but before that you gotta scythe it. Scything is no walk in the park and basically you gotta do a lot of that every day to cover enough area to keep the cattle fed. Then plowing without a tractor and using animals: not just dangerous but backbreaking work. Then hoeing the weeds, funking need to do it all the time because without herbicides, the weeds grow everywhere and by the time you "finished" going once over all crops, they've grown back where you first started. At some point my father had this fantasy of what is now called "organic" crops, in fact cheapskating at paying the price for herbicides, so I did so much hoeing that it got out of my nose. I don't recall me saying it but my mother told me that at some point in a middle of a potatoes hoeing session I said that I'd rather solve 1000 math problems than do even just another row of potatoes. Definitive moment in my career choice, which is a lot closer to solving math problems now than hoeing organic potatoes :)
Yes, I lived in a rural area in my youth (not too bad, very close to the city), and I had friends who were sons of farmers. Much of the work was mechanized, but still there was plenty of boring, tiring work to be found.
I am always amazed by those who idealize the rural life; they obviously never had a part in it, otherwise they would rather not do it. People who end up doing this all their lives usually are stuck there with no real opportunity/alternative.
>in fact cheapskating at paying the price for herbicides
This is a pattern I have noticed as well. In my opinion, many of the organic proponents don't actually do the hard work and are often stingy to a fault. It is effortless to argue for something that requires way more work when you have to take part in the work. I think it is just rhetoric to ask for something of perceived better quality at a lower cost.
So if we go back much further life was super chill and romantic? I dont buy it tbh, it feels to me just as unrealistic.
Not necessarily back, but to the right environments. As quoted above, we see the same today in isolated tribes that live off of hunting and foraging. All of this also doesn't account for the lack of all other modern convenience such as medicine, hygiene, etc. So it isn't about chill and romantic, but rather the time commitment specifically.
Those tribes work a lot if you count food processing, cleaning, creating and maintaining tools, shelters, childcare and so on and so forth.
It looks like they work only a little if you count only pure hunting attempts, the most food rich seasons and ignore the rest.
Without modern entertainment devices, or even books, what else are they going to do? Some “work” could have a lot of crossover into hobby. Some people enjoy cooking, making tools, spending time with kids, etc. They need to do something to pass the time. The stuff is also for a clear purpose. Making a tool to solve a problem right in front of you feels different than performing a seemingly arbitrary task everyday because a boss says so.
Yup.
https://kk.org/mt-files/reCCearch-mt/kaplan-darker.pdf
Also they're almost universally malnourished and their access to the food they are able to get is inconsistent at best.
The Bush People previously called The Pygmies are modern humans who eat the diet of the previous homonids and get stunted by the caloric deficits. The only thing they plant is hemp, which doesnt scale to actual agriculture.
I believe the reasons we "regressed" into agriculture from hunting and gathering are much more complicated than "we moved into more marginal land".
It does appear that the median hunter gatherer life was better than the median farmer life. But I'd wager that to be true in most areas.
It isn't true.
https://kk.org/mt-files/reCCearch-mt/kaplan-darker.pdf