The Limits to Living Off the Land
Alastair Bland once took an Anthropology class at UC Santa Barbara.
Hunter-gatherers, I learned, live freer lives, with more leisure time, than agriculturalists. Twelve to eighteen hours per person per week is all time needed by the famous !Kung people of the Kalahari Desert, for example, to collect all the food they need. This leaves more time for reflection and relaxation than most people in our affluent society ever have -- the !Kung don't need to work to pay rent.
So Bland tried a spicy experiment -- live entirely off the land and sea, for 80 days and 80 nights of spear-fishing and fig-plucking. His account is fascinating, and contains some cautionary examples of how getting back to pre-agricultural life ain't all that:
I got some inspiring encouragement from a number of individuals during My Project. They marveled at how great it was and exclaimed that they would some day try to do something similar. They thought it was a good thing to boycott the American market and a shame more people didn't appreciate nature's bounty the way I did. These, though, were usually just acquaintances of mine. The people closest to me, more often than not, criticized what I was doing. They said I was becoming weird and that my obsession was taking over my life. They said that I was alienating myself and that all I ever did was gather, cook, and eat. And I think that if I had had more close friends I would have heard this kind of talk even more often.
The truth is, I almost agreed. Even now I don't believe what I did was very constructive. It was a memorable time in my life, to be sure, and it was a good thing to have tried. But to carry on like that forever would have been, for me, social suicide. To be an individual hunter-gatherer in America is to lead a lonely life. [?]
[E]ven when full and satiated and liberated from the physical desire for food, I couldn't relax, I was held captive by thoughts of food. I sometimes dreamed of figs and climbing around in trees.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Should've taken a fridge with him.
Well, the main difference of course is the fact that he didn't live with other hunter-gatherers, where division of labor based on gender would be common. Hunter and gatherers, ans slash and burn agriculturalists weren't generally hermits in other words.
I've always heard - from people who do field work - that often times because of parasites and disease, many hunter-gatherers don't have to conserve engergy can can't afford to work more than a small amount of the time for too many days in a row.
bushbabe betty:
umm... what?
I once used fig-plucking to win a radio contest. The idea was to send in a tongue-twister that the DJ (a professional speaker, of course) couldn't say. No one won in about two weeks when I sent in:
Repeat rapidly 5 times the following:
I'm not a fig-plucker, I'm a fig-plucker's son, but I'll pluck figs 'til a fig-plucker comes.
He didn't even try on the air. (I kinda assume he tried it off air.) Of course, this was in the 1960's, so maybe standards have changed.
All gatherer, no hunter. A little red meat would have cheered him up no end.
ortolan88 -- Not much in the way of wildlife in Isla Visa, unless you count squirrels or possums. Though now that I remember it (having gone to school there), there were plenty of cute wild bunny rabbits running around in the bluffs south of campus. Mmmm....
This is all so silly. The question is not how many hours you had to work to live in subsistence.
To complete the liberal vision, we would need to know how many figs were collected to provide 'free education' and 'free healthcare'.
Yeah, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle sounds nice until you realize that to really live it to its fullest you should give up all the things that it cannot support. Things like houses, most clothes, shoes, electricity, medicine, running water, etc. ad infinitum.
It doesn't sound like our friend in Santa Barbara went the whole hog, so to speak. Rather, what he did was experiment with the hunter-gatherer diet, rather like someone dabbling in Atkins.
So he was lonely and bored, and having no division of labor or fellows to work along with (efficiency of scale and reducing variance in outcomes by pooling risks and rewards) means you have real problems getting not so much all you HAVE to eat, but all you WANT to eat.
And that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? The fact is, you can arrive at bare subsistance by doing just about anything, from eating out of gargace cans to foraging to hunting and gathering. But you can't quite seem to get all you WANT, can you?
Which is, as a point of history, the whole reason so many humans have for so long toiled in so many different tasks - to attempt to solve problems that were facing them, and/or because the work was simply interesting to them. And thus all the voluntary developments and arrangements humanity has ever seen.
But good on him for actually having the balls - so to speak - to actually DO what interested him, to try something others payed only lipservice to, and to be honest about the facts of the matter. Doing without coercion, the world be a better place to reside in if more were like him; indeed, life is more fufilling to LIVE as such as that.
fig plucking? is that like pig fucking? Ahh to live the hunter gatherers life.
Hmm. If we went back to a hunter-gatherer society, it would kill off all those infernal vegans......
Matt,
Here in the Bluegrass State, squirrel is considered fiiiine eatin'.
Steven Crane:
Only if there is too much hunting and not enough gathering 😉
The argument, from what I've seen seems to go like this:
1. Late, advanced hunter gatherers in prime areas were very health, based on what can be seen from bones.
2. Early, primative farmers with only a few crops in the same areas around the same time were smaller, and less health based on what we can see from bones.
3. Therefore, a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is better than today's advanced, technological agricultural society.
What gets overlooked is that the real winners in the ancient world were the nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralists and herders. They were healthy, didn't work much, and were the people that conquered pretty much every agricultural society the could find and made themselves the nobility.
Of course, once people had settled the traders and merchants and money lenders seemed to be the ones who garnered the tremendous riches, best access to education (the best private instructors who were experts in their field, books, opportunities for study, work, and travel, etc), and of course the highlest level of medical care and anything they wanted to eat. Not to mention political influence, social status, and power - and freedom, too.
So there you go.
To jorgXMckie:
That rhyme comes from a drinking game called "Little Red Hen"
It is the final tounge twister of a series which include "Eight egotistical egotists, echoing egotistical extasies" and "Nine nubile nudes nibbling nox, knuckles, and nicotine"
ahhh, the college life!
Well, well, well. Just did a web-search on my own name for the hell of it, and look what I found. I've created a stir! Just wanted to clear something up. I DID eat wildlife. It was fish, lobster, scallops - seafood, in a word.
Also, in regards to my not giving up EVERYTHING in modern society. True enough. I didn't. But who says a hunter-gatherer must live without electricity, running water, etcetera? Well, R,C. Dean (ABOVE) as of now. I've never heard anyone else complain that I still participated - to an extent - in my community and society.
To R.C. Dean: You're right in saying that my "lifestyle" was not that of the stereo-typical hunter-gatherer. But that is not to say I wasn't a hunter-gatherer. I didn't live in Africa either, or wear a loin cloth, or speak via strange clicking noises. These are all stereotypes, right?
I DID hunt and gather my food. I said in my article that I spent a couple of hours or more every day hunting and gathering. Isn't that enough? And again, why can't a true hunter-gatherer have electricity and plumbing? Hell, with all those figs, plumbing sure came in handy a few- just kidding. (My stomach was like iron. I was never running for toilets.)
I appreciate the comments. -Alastair
the problem bud, is that when your job is a hunter gathere you dont have the conventional income necessary for electricity, and plumbing. the ideal, for me anyway is to be totally self sufficient. you can live and get along well without holding a conventional job.
the problem bud, is that when your job is a hunter gathere you dont have the conventional income necessary for electricity, and plumbing. the ideal, for me anyway is to be totally self sufficient. you can live and get along well without holding a conventional job.
I've added more insight to this topic since it was explored here back in 2003.