in general, any culture that attempts to conquer your own gets referred to as "savages".

The Mongols are a very interesting case of pastoralists conquering an agrarian culture -- without the agrarian culture having basically collapsed first. I don't know enough about Asian history to understand why that might have been.

JS

Actually the "economics" of hunter-gatherers are not reducible to any modern political system, and they vary by tribe.  "The Old Way" (a book in my Recommended Reading list) goes into detail for the Kalahari Bushmen...the customs around food distribution differ radically from hunted meat to gathered tubers to gathered nuts.

The key is that in foraging societies, group size is always small enough that everyone knows exactly who is contributing what...so no matter what system they choose to abide by, it's always enforceable.  And, to my knowledge, money has never been part of it (though they'll use it in trade with outside societies).

Interestingly enough, the Nuer of Sudan (who were/are pastoralists) greatly limit purchase of cattle (the measure of wealth within the tribe) with currency, for the reasons you describe: external wealth became a massively distorting influence on their society.

JS

maybe this is why so many people want socialism to work? because that is our evolved background, but of course it does not work due to dependants.
and of course back then someone born with certain "defects" would not survive to adulthood and become a burden on the rest, whereas we encourage their survival and (at least in UK) then the state supports them.

the main problem with capitalism in many ways is (in this context) that in a small tribe of say 30 some would be hunters and one would be the best (there will always be someone better at other people at something in groups. even if they'e all competent) that person would likely be looked up to and maybe even "lead" but not overly dominate. other hunters would still help support by providing food. (extend this to storage of food so it does not spoil, gathering, building of shelters even temporary, clothing etc everything a tribe would need)

however in a capitalist situation and the modern one too we'd take the very best at their job, those guys who are in the top say 80% would all be useful, those between 40-79% are not needed. we tend to get the very best who get very well paid, they then lead less useful people and teach them enough to do a simplified version of the job but get paid next to nothing.

in fact it all comes down to money: as soon as you can charge x amount for something it becomes problematic.
and i can pay someone else to do my fair share of the hunting or whatever purely because my parents are rich and so i am born rich.
i then never need to add value to the community.
you can argue (and many will) that i add value through the use of my money, but i would argue that is my parents continuing to add value, even after their deaths, my own addition may not exist at all.

it is however a tricky situation that we cannot resolve i feel.

Learn from the gnolls: be a guerrilla, not a martyr.

JS

Whoop!

I've written so many articles that it's easy to miss a few!  Fortunately, the index makes it easier to keep track.

As I said, I think the problem is that the social and political systems enforced by "civilization" (by which we mean agriculture) force us to regress into "monkeys fighting over bananas".  Forager societies are relentlessly egalitarian -- and if a conflict is not solvable, one party usually leaves the tribe and joins another.  

In contrast, in an agricultural society, those options are unavailable.  Individual land ownership means that we all have to pay rent to someone else and give our fealty to the ruling entity simply in order to exist on the Earth -- and since such systems claim every square inch of the Earth, opting out is not an option either.  We are forced to passively acquiesce, or to stand and fight.

JS

You'll have to clarify: which key issues are you speaking of?

Hunter-gatherers could specialize, but they couldn't do so at the
expense of general survival skills, which everyone had to maintain.  So
agriculture enabled a much greater degree of specialization -- though
this specialization has only generally been used to maintain a slave class.

JS

Living by our own wits and skill is all very well but will as of now not be sufficient to ensure survival.

"Why isn't there an alternative?"

There is -- but most people would rather exchange their freedom for the security of a regular paycheck, instead of living entirely by their own productivity.

Of course, this is what hunting and foraging is...living by your strength and wits.  It is the perpetual condition of every animal -- except "humans since agriculture".

It is also true that the modern world discourages living by our strength and wits at every turn.  A fearful, dependent populace is more easily controlled, and therefore far more profitable, than a society of proud, independent thinkers and warriors.

JS

Anything that's mildly abrasive, doesn't mess up your tooth enamel, and doesn't feed your mouth bacteria (e.g. no sugar or carbohydrate) is fine AFAIK.  Some people use a mix of baking soda and coconut oil, but that's tough in cold climates.  Some people use neem powder.  Both have worked fine for me, as has regular toothpaste when I'm lazy.

I don't use fluoride toothpaste because I was given fluoride treatments at the dentist and see no need for it.

Elliott:

See my replies to eddie and GZK, above.  I'm not pushing the noble savage myth, and I'm not recommending that we return to a Pleistocene way of life.  

"Furthermore, there were no "rich" and "poor" in hunter-gatherer societies because the rich were the only ones left. The poor had all starved to death a long time ago."

Not true at all.  We know of no hunter-gatherer society in which one member has even three times the wealth of another, let alone millions of times the wealth, as in today's world.  The concepts of "rich" and "poor" have little meaning when your possessions must be carried with you, when land is defended by the tribe as a whole, and no one can confiscate years' worth of the accrued labor of another as they can in agricultural society.

"The problems you describe are real problems that have caused a great deal of suffering for a lot of people. As some other commenters have pointed out, though, these problems were caused by one thing: more people living in less space."

Also not true at all.  The suffering of agricultural society is caused by the fact that agriculture depends entirely on living off accrued labor, invested over an entire season in a very small and defined area of land.  Once you've harvested and stored your grain for the season, it's trivial for a group of armed thugs to confiscate it.  Either the barbarians get you, or…"We'll protect you from the barbarians…if you give us half.  Otherwise we burn your house, rape your wife anyway."  And that's basically the story of agriculture: palace economies make North Korea look like a block party, and the Earth had a fraction of its current population back then.  Also see my comment to Asclepius above.

JS

Furthermore, there were no "rich" and "poor" in hunter-gatherer societies because the rich were the only ones left. The poor had all starved to death a long time ago. Food was scarce, and harsh necessity kept populations small. Sure, food sharing could keep people alive if they suffered a temporary setback or if times were generally hard, but if someone didn't have the fundamental ability to provide for himself over the long term, he would starve sooner or later.

The problems you describe are real problems that have caused a great deal of suffering for a lot of people. As some other commenters have pointed out, though, these problems were caused by one thing: more people living in less space. The only comprehensive solution to these problems is fewer people. Odds are that, had we been born into a hunter-gatherer society, both Mr. Stanton and I, along with most of the people who've commented on this post, would be dead.

Most people don't like sitting on their butts all day working drone desk jobs until they go home and poison themselves with unhealthy, nutritionally bankrupt food. They'd rather do that than not be alive, though. "What about war, genocide, or crime?" one might ask. The brutal fact of the matter is that the young men killed in war at least survived long enough to become men, which they probably wouldn't have without civilization. Same goes for the rest. I'm not saying we should embrace the defects of civilization without trying to correct them, but there's a reason we don't all chase down our food and stab it with sticks anymore.

How do you feel about using organic toothpaste, or toothpaste in general for tooth brushing? I'm very curious although I've noticed that eating fatty ruminants has drastically freshened my breath throughout the day anyhow.