Is mankind happier in advanced or primitive societies?

Question

Who works harder?

http://www.primitivism.com/

Answer 1

Primitive societies, have a much simpler life than us, thus they are much more happier, but the heck is, that when you bring one of those that inhabit such society in our society, they have difficulties to go back...

Our life is much easier than them, as we don't really need to survived and hunt all the time to get our food.

Anyways, those have more basic life values than us and are, in my point of view, more close to the truth than our science will ever be...

Answer 2

This issue has everything to do with how WE perceive other cultures rather than how "happy" THEY are. In the past, many people have either disparaged or romanticized so-called "primitive" cultures. Not only were "primitive" cultures looked down upon, they were often not even considered human. They were often destroyed, enslaved, and missionized. Think of the extensive and brutal history of colonization, which unfortunately, lives on today in many ways.  One common result of the decimation of indigenous people is that the decimators come to romanticize the decimated! This is what is called the "Noble Savage" syndrome. For example, think of how American society, which once purposefully destroyed Native American cultures, now romanticizes them to a large degree. It is a common irony of the cycle of colonization.

One classic argument that makes the case that people were better off in societies with simpler technology is the chapter "The Original Affluent Society" in Marshall Sahlins' book "Stone Age Economics" (1972). In that piece, Sahlins points to the fact, discovered from the archaeological record as well as from ethnographic studies, that people who live in hunting-and-gathering societies often have better health, better diets, and are less prone to disease and starvation than people who farm and live in settled towns. The reason, he claims, is that farmers depend on fewer crops which are also genetically homogenized. As a result, they are more prone to drought and blight, and since farmers exploit only a few species compared to hunter-gatherers, they are much more affected by it. Hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, can simply move on to a new area and/or exploit different species. Furthermore, the close proximity to animal and human waste products (garbage, f***s, and carcasses) in settled towns produces higher rates of epidemic disease, which of course spread faster because people are settled and living in very close proximity to one another.

Another book that people often point to when discussing the romanticization of "primitive" cultures is Colin Turnbull's "The Forest People" (1962), a classic anthropological ethnography about the Mbuti ("pygmy") tribe of the Congo. However, what often gets overlooked in this book is the fact that Turnbull presents, not some idyllic culture living in harmony with their environment and with each other, but a culture that is noisy (literally and figuratively) with conflict, struggle, and social drama much like any "complex"/"western" society. Today, anthropologists recognize that no society on either end of the "simple/complex" spectrum is "better" than any other. Certainly, you will find happy people, sad people, angry people, selfish people, etc., in all societies.

In fact, what one comes to realize is that "happiness" is absolutely not dependent on the society that one lives in. even defining the term "happiness" is at best very, very difficult if at all possible.  However, extensive cross-cultural research has been done by a team of psychologists led by a man named Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (1991). Their research is quite complicated, but to simplify it, they found that what we often call "happiness" has more to do with the fact that people get satisfaction out of the work that they do, rather than the *kind* of work that they do. In other words, if we choose careers, hobbies, and practices that are satisfactory, that challenge us so that we are not bored, that allow us to 'grow', we begin to have the feelings that one might call "happiness". This is all regardless of cultural background.

Answer 3

I would say more primitive societies are happier.  There is a saying, no food, one problem, lots of food, lots of problems. If they are eking out an existence, then the primitives probably work harder.  I think our modern society has become the most paranoid, fearful, hypochondriatic, whiny group since humans were humans and it is ironic because we are the healthiest, safest, and wealthiest ever.

Answer 4

Happiness does not depend on material comforts.    In primitive societies people depend on each other much more and hence stay together and keep in close touch. That may give an impression of them being happier than the lonely souls living in material comforts in advanced societies.  And they work harder physically.

Answer 5

i would say primitive.  Things are much more simpler and humble.  I say in advanced societies there is A LOT more drama but thats just me

Answer 6

First, why call them primitive, even stone age societies have the full range of complexity as modern western societies. They have to consider all the same systems we do - economics, subsistence, political, kinship, religious and technological just to name a few.  

Even with regard to technology - while they may not be in the computer age - think about how complex the technology needs to be to survive in the arctic, or other extreme conditions - they simply use different types of materials.

If we look to agricultural or market based economies as opposed to hunter gatherer  socieites, I would think that the H/Gs are happier.  Studies have shown that despite what those of us in "modern society" may think, they actually spend much less of their day in "work" that that is necessary to fulfill thier needs.  For those accustomed to this lifestyle it appears that the average workday is only a few hours long - with the rest of the day free for whatever they want to do.

DM

Answer 7

I believe that primitive societies would be more happier since everybody would be happy with the basic necessities of life. However, in an advanced sociey, there is always competition as people struggle with one another in their vie for power. Warfare spawned from advancing societies because they competed with each other for resources to advance themselves.  Wars only bring pain and suffering.

Answer 8

When you consider both today's and yesterday's societies, the problems were basically the same: fighting, famine, disease, dysfunction, etc.

In primitive societies, life was physically harder, I believe, because much of what they needed they had to go after, whether animals, fish, birds or plants. They didn't have cars or other transportation, so they walked, ran, rode horses, use dogteams, etc. and then they had to stalk, kill, and butcher the animals, fish or fowl themselves. Because of all the physical labor, most primitive societies were physically healthier and , I assume, felt better about themselves. But they still had their shamanism or other beliefs that kept many in fear.

In advanced societies, life is easier and you have a gadget for everything. Even in blue collar jobs, most still have a soft bed to go to, instant foods, transportation, etc. But, as in many cases, once you start accumulating possessions, it's easy to want more and more. In today's societies, more people are overweight and I think, secretly, that most are unhappy about their weight. People are more sedentary and are lazier. If we were happier, we would not be warring in America and in other countries. Mankind is not happy with each other today.

The bottom line is: Are you happy?

Answer 9

I think it depends on what you would consider happy.  I don't think I'd be very happy without toilets... or showers...  However, to more directly answer your question, I do believe that people may be happier in "primitive" societies, providing these societies are not extant.  I think people tend to want what others have, and if the primitive society exists alongside an advanced society, the people would be envious, and hence, not happy.  You know, the old have vs. have not discussion.  However, if everyone exists in a primitive - or at least less complicated and less materialistic society - life would probably be a great deal more meaningful.  I think less complicated societies allow people time to spend with one another, developing richer social lives.  And, we are social animals after all.

Answer 10

If you read studies, you will see that happiness and grief can be found in all societies, no matter how advanced their technologies.

I think happiness is probably slightly more prevalent in less complicated society, and people are generally more pleased with their work when they can see the results (as opposed to having just one job somewhere on the assembly line).  Obesity and other problems related to industrialized societies also decrease "happiness".

And as far as time and energy spent on pure subsistence, those in advanced societies tend to work at least twice as many hours a week and spend something like three times as much energy.