I don't know if it's a question of happiness, but instead it was probably one of necessity. H-G numbers were kept in check by available resources randomly dispersed in nature. Agriculture gave man the ability to manifest abundance without necessarily depending on nature to provide.

I think there are many studies on the overall health of hunter-gatherers as a result of diet and exercise and leisure time as demanded by the lifestyle. In early agricultural societies you have to work harder and longer and you're forced to eat a lot of bread, potatoes and corn and other low quality foods.

Of course, you can only study the diets of the living.

> H-G numbers were kept in check by available resources randomly dispersed in nature.

But... doesn't "numbers were kept in check" mean "surplus people starved to death"?

Yes, but that tended to happen in linear fashion. Whereas, after agriculture, growth could occur exponentially and then when a major multi-year drought would hit, you'd have huge devastating loss of life. The deaths of some H-G humans is not much different than the limits of growth modern predators hit today. Hunter-gatherer humans could also keep their numbers in check by breastfeeding longer (sometimes until their children were as old as 5), since breastfeeding delays ovulation. Agricultural societies, meanwhile, developed lactose tolerance for cow's milk, and could use that as a supplement for child nutrition. And women would spend more of their time on the work necessary to run a farm or home, which is more labor intensive than what nomadic H-G tribes did.

> doesn't "numbers were kept in check" mean "surplus people starved

Not so obviously. Would you argue this for (say) lions or eagles? Few adults starve, when times are lean there is less breeding, and fewer kids who survive, compared to times of plenty.

Whereas the collapse of an early agricultural society (perhaps due to pests, or just no rain) probably did result in lots of adults starving, if there were more of them than could be supported on gathered food.

> true in some sense.

In the sense that the diets & health of ordinary people were much worse under early agriculture. This appears to have been true for a long time, maybe until a few centuries ago.

People ran away if they could. Early agricultural societies seem more and more like attempts by warlords to enslave both animals and humans for their benefit. Capturing livestock & farmers seems to have been the main goal of warfare.

> also an incredibly good deal, in that it now supports 7000 million human lives

Sure, 21st century life is (for almost all of us) much better. It's not so clear that 19th C life was so (except for a few highly-developed places).

Nor is it clear how great 22nd century life will be.

Origin of the meme, I'm pretty sure: "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race" Jared Diamond, 1987

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/THOC/Readings/Diamond_Worst...

TL;DR: there are trade-offs.

edit: I forgot to mention, there may be a third way that combines the best of both worlds: "Redesigning Civilization with Permaculture" (video) http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/redesigning-civilization-with... sequel to "How Permaculture Can Save Humanity and the Planet – But Not Civilization" http://tobyhemenway.com/videos/how-permaculture-can-save-hum...