Has change brought progress?

The traditional view of the changes that have occurred in human societies has been one of steady progress with constant improvement in human lifestyles.  Many people now question this view, pointing out that former societies and cultures were not necessarily inferior but that they were unable to withstand the military or industrial strength that other societies developed.

Hunting and gathering, for example, is often portrayed as a constant struggle to obtain enough food to survive.  This view is based on observations of the few hunter-gatherers that continued to exist into recent times.  These hunter-gatherer societies have been pushed into some of the most inhospitable places in the world as agriculture has taken over more and more land for farming.  It is to be expected that such displaced people would find life difficult.

If we look at reports of the lifestyle of hunter gatherers before Western influence we see a different picture.  Foe example, Sir George Grey, an Englishman who explored Australia in the early days of European settlement was a keen observer of the Australian Aboriginal people.  In 1883 he wrote in his journal:
"Generally speaking the natives live well; in some districts there may be, at particular seasons of the year, a deficiency of food, but if such the case, these tracts are at those times deserted.  I can only say that I have always found the greatest abundance in their huts....In all ordinary seasons they can obtain in two or three hours a sufficient supply of food for the day." (Journals at Two Expeditions of Discovery in North-west and Western Australia during the years 1837, 38)

The observations of Grey say that a mean of three to five hours per adult day spent obtaining food is seen to be the norm.  Far from being a constant struggle for survival it seems that hunter-gatherers had a much more relaxed lifestyle than people in our society.  In Palaeolithic times, when hunting and gathering was the only form of society, the proportion of people in the world who were undernourished must have been much less than it is today.

As population densities rose towards the end of the last ice age, hunter-gatherer band were forced to adapt pastoral and horticultural practices or else find ways of limiting population growth.  As farming developed, the farmers' population would have increased so that they drove away or 'killed off', groups of hunter-gatherers.  Therefore, hunter-gatherers did not give up their lifestyle for a better one; they were forced away except those who were wanted by the farmers.

Agriculture brought deep social and sexual divisions, poorer nutrition, disease and rule by a ruthless elite.  Contrary to what we expect, there is evidence that the health of people did not improve with the adoption of pastoralism and horticulture but this will be a whole other blog as there has been many reasons suggested.

The change in farming also brought about deep divisions within society.  Hunter-gatherers do not store food; they live mainly of plants and animals they collect each day.  If food is stored, or if there is a large source of food like a field of grain or a herd of animals, a ruling class can develop by feeding on food taken from others.  One advantage is that the ruling class enjoy an improved diet.  We can see from present day societies that the rulers are usually better fed than the peasants.

Can it be said that the evolution of human societies as been a process of continual improvement?  Certainly we, in developed countries, enjoy many advantages and pleasures that were not available to ancient humans.  But, at the same time the evolution of society has brought huge inequalities between peoples, conflicts, sometimes on a world scale, and degradation of the environment that may be irreversible.  Hunter-gatherers were able to live in harmony with their environment, avoid severe inequities and conflicts and at the same time cater for everyone's basic needs.

Societies throughout the world have become increasingly interdependent, a process known as globalisation.  Today there is an accelerated rate of cultural diffusion which is leading towards a global culture.  Unfortunately globalisation is not leading to reduction in inequalities between industrialised countries and the poorer nations.  The lifestyle that we in the wealthy, developed nations enjoy is profoundly different from that in the developing countries.  We must help them along the way, it is our ethical responsibility as a human race.