> I suppose it is telling that this was the better alternative.
Presumably you mean "better for the individual", but I don't believe this is an assumption we can make. It seems clear that agriculture was better in a competitive sense than other ways of life at the time, though likely worse for many of the individuals involved.
That was sloppy, sorry. I should have added "perceived" as there, or scare quotes on 'better'; I meant it in the sense that this was the path that was collectively chosen, i.e. the one that "won".
Re:Being basic as a virtue
by whiddershins on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @06:58PM
(#20630509)
Actually I think it was clearly better at the group survival/displacement of other groups level.
There’s no evidence it was necessarily better for any particular insividual’s quality of life.
Re:Being basic as a virtue
by your-nanny on Tuesday August 06, 2019 @05:49PM
(#20630030)
hell, you can tell smokers by the I dentation in their bones, or so I was told by one forensic anthropologist.
I've known people who have constructed working lives for themselves that try and achieve this balance, but it is a difficult thing to do. I expect that it usually has an economic penalty of some sort, but if at least some of the work pays well it's not crazy.
One way to manage it would be to find lucrative work roughly 1/2 time (i.e. "knowledge work" contracts) and then very intentionally spend the rest of your time outside and doing something active. If you've ever tried to negotiate a short week for less pay you'll probably realize this is difficult to arrange.