Wasn't there such an implication with "Hunter-gatherers in fact (depending on climate) usually live pretty easy, work-free lives."?
I was responding to the whole quoted paragraph. That "pretty easy, work-free lives" is the stuff of romance. What's true is that they remain much more the masters of their own time than wage workers, say. But in contemporary circumstances, there's a price. However, it's for no one but themselves to decide whether that price is worth paying.
>I presume you claim that (e.g.)
>neolithic villages, Roman slaves, Congolese under Leopold, all lived
>idyllic lives in contrast to hunter-gatherers.
And here we go again. Who's doing the binaries?
Did I claim thus? Or even counterpose them as possible _contemporary_ alternatives to hunting and gathering?
Actually, it would have been more sensible to presume that I might just claim that _some_ forms of living in the USA might just be idyllic in contrast to hunter-gatherers! Even the hunter-gatherers I know might do so! But perhaps your choice of presumption reveals that you think of hunter-gatherers as people from some remote past?
kj khoo