In the long run, wars make us safer and richer

[Ideologue]

For the reasons Ideologue suggests, it might have been lower.

Well, I don't go so far as to blame conditions in the Iron Age on Ronald Reagan.

[jimmy olsen]

An actual subsistence farmer in 1800 - say a Russian serf or a Chinese peasant - would probably not have a materially higher standard of living then an Old Stone Age hunter-gatherer.  For the reasons Ideologue suggests, it might have been lower.  The fact that such a farmer might have access to tools with which he would do more work and yet receive less nutritive benefit is not a plus.

Old Stone Age hunter gathers rarely lived older than 30 let alone 40, a Chinese peasant that survived childhood could live into his 50s or even 60s if he's lucky.

[The Minsky Moment]

Modern hunter-gatherers who live traditional lifestyles can and do live well past 40.  There is no reason to think this wasn't true in the Stone Age as well. 

[alfred russel]

Tim, one way of thinking about it is that until recently human populations stayed at roughly their carrying capacity. Improvements in technology improved the carrying capacity of the land, but that just meant that there were higher densities of people living on the brink.

A subsistence farmer was on the brink. In the late 18th/early 19th century, depending on where we are talking about, he didn't have access much technology that would improve his life from a medical or entertainment perspective.

In some ways, hunter gatherers may have been better off. They arguably had more time for leisure and a more varied diet. I think he also had a chance to live into his 50s or 60s if lucky.

[Valmy]

In some ways, hunter gatherers may have been better off. They arguably had more time for leisure and a more varied diet. I think he also had a chance to live into his 50s or 60s if lucky.

From what I have heard about Hunter-Gatherers is that under normal circumstances they are really good at what they do.  They usually have all the food they need by midmorning and just hang out the rest of the day.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's a few reasons to think that Old Stone Age h-gs might have had longevity problems.  One is the hypothesis that violence (raiding) was endemic in this period - but that hardly supports the conclusion that war is good.  It's also possible that animal predators were more prevalent during an epoch of much lower density human settlement.  In terms of living a peaceful life, it was probably better to be a Russian serf or Chinese peasant c. 1800. Unless of course that village was overrun by French troops or Cossacks.  Or unless there was a nasty outbreak of communicative disease.

Living standards in western Europe were significantly higher in 1800 than in the Stone Age.  An average income of $3-4/day implies living standards of around double of subsistence.  Even taking into account unequal distribution, that is still a lot of people better off.  But that needs to be compared to over $10/day by 1913 or over $50/day by 2000.  The progress made up from the beginning of time to the early 1800s was glacially slow.  If wars were having some kind of beneficial impact, it sure took a very, very long time for it to become manifest.

[Sheilbh]

Living standards in western Europe were significantly higher in 1800 than in the Stone Age.  An average income of $3-4/day implies living standards of around double of subsistence.  Even taking into account unequal distribution, that is still a lot of people better off.  But that needs to be compared to over $10/day by 1913 or over $50/day by 2000.  The progress made up from the beginning of time to the early 1800s was glacially slow.  If wars were having some kind of beneficial impact, it sure took a very, very long time for it to become manifest.

Even in early industrial cities? My understanding was that British city-dwellers had a far lower life expectancy than even the rural poor in the early 19th century.

[crazy canuck]

Here is an interesting bit related to life expectancy of stone age hunter gatherers.  To the list JR mentioned add infant mortality as a factor which lowers the average life expectancy but as the author notes those that lived past the dangers present in their world went on to live long lives.  The article goes on to note the negative impact of leaving the hunter gatherer life for agriculture.  Conditions which would be similar to the analogy Timmay proposed.

Conventional wisdom states that life expectancy prior to the Agricultural Revolution was about 18 years and that our distant ancestors rarely survived beyond the age of 30. The first figure is correct but the second is not. Life expectancy is an average, not a maximum. When infant mortality is high it drags down the average life expectancy. Lots of babies died back then for the same reason that they do now in undeveloped countries: no plumbing, vaccines or antibiotics. The presence of any one of those advances sends life expectancy soaring but it doesn't add as much to the length of adult life.

It's no surprise that lots of Stone Agers died of injuries early in life. A disabled hunter has a short future. We can never know how many of our distant ancestors ended up as some leopard's lunch, leaving not a morsel behind for future anthropologists to find.

It's certainly not true that Stone Age people rarely made it to what we would call old age. Anthropologists have known for decades that about 10 percent of humans lived beyond the age of 60 years during the Old Stone Age, the thousands of years that preceded the domestication of crops and animals. Modern-day hunter-gatherers that are untouched by the blessings of civilization also have a low life expectancy but about 20 percent of them do live past 60 years.

Stone-Agers were certainly not a fragile bunch. They were more muscular than all but the most highly trained athletes of the present day. Their skeletons reveal that they were taller than those people that lived after the start of the Agricultural Revolution. It wasn't until the middle of the last century that inhabitants along the shores of the Mediterranean became as tall as their pre-agricultural ancestors.

Humanity paid a price for the remarkable cultural achievements that followed the Agricultural Revolution. Every single group that discarded the hunter-gatherer way of life in favor of farming became smaller in stature, had a shorter lifespan and suffered from iron-deficiency, parasitic diseases, epidemics and high infant mortality.

History may be repeating itself. The 21st century is remarkable for its scientific advances, especially food production and the development of labor saving devices. We are also in the midst of the degradation of our health because of those very same advances. Increased lifespan (77.6 years in the United States) does not mean better health. Our healthspan, the period from birth to the onset of disabling chronic disease, has barely increased at all and it may be decreasing.

By mid-century the life expectancy of future generations will start heading downward unless we can slow down the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

There are some signs that we're going to succeed eventually. I see more seniors at fitness centers. Food producers, anticipating government regulation, are finding substitutes for heart-damaging trans fats. School administrators are taking control of what suppliers place in on-campus vending machines. Milk is in; soda is out.

The health revolution has begun. Let's hope that we didn't start too late.

[The Minsky Moment]

My understanding was that British city-dwellers had a far lower life expectancy than even the rural poor in the early 19th century.

Urban life expectancy has tended to be lower than rural life expectancy for almost all of history until quite recently, because of disease and sanitation.

[The Brain]

I'm a subsistence farmer, motherfucker!

[Razgovory]

Modern hunter-gatherers who live traditional lifestyles can and do live well past 40.  There is no reason to think this wasn't true in the Stone Age as well.

Today we call them "Hobos".

[CountDeMoney]

I want to hit Timmay with a stone.

[jimmy olsen]

Modern hunter-gatherers who live traditional lifestyles can and do live well past 40.  There is no reason to think this wasn't true in the Stone Age as well.

Hunter gatherers that ethnographers have had contact with used a neolithic tool kit. You specifically said old stone age, i.e. the paleolithic. It is a fact born out by the fossil record that hunter gatherers almost never lived past the age of 40.

[grumbler]

Hunter gatherers that ethnographers have had contact with used a neolithic tool kit. You specifically said old stone age, i.e. the paleolithic. It is a fact born out by the fossil record that hunter gatherers almost never lived past the age of 40.

You (or your source) misunderstands the evidence, if you believe that enough paleolithic human remains have been found to draw accurate age maps of any paleolithic peoples.  Current estimates I have seen indicate that late-Paleolithic man had an adult life expectancy of around 55 (which means, if a stone-age human reached 20 years of age or so, they could expect to live another 35 years or so to reach age 55 or so).  Your "fact" seems dubious.

[The Brain]

Who the fuck names their kid Gatherer?