Comment by next_xibalba

Comment by next_xibalba 6 hours ago

14 replies

View on Hacker News

The costs and benefits faced by ancient humans were very, very different. Maybe a different way to frame the question would be "At what probability of additional death, injury, or suffering (to you or other tribe members) would you abandon your injured/disabled?" Humans of that era did not have anything even remotely approaching modern medicine and most lived at subsistence levels with starvation always at their doorstep. A huge portion of ancient peoples energy and time was dedicating to obtaining calories. That means caring for the injured/disabled imposes a huge cost and risk. We can just as easily find examples of ancient peoples murdering or abandoning their injured, disabled, and weak. I don't think it would be right or fair to judge them through a modern lens. Of course they cared for their loved ones and mourned their deaths. But they were faced with much harsher circumstances to which their cultures and beliefs were suited.

ookdatnog 5 hours ago

> most lived at subsistence levels with starvation always at their doorstep

Genuine question: is this something we know from evidence, or an assumption? I vaguely recall having read that comparison between skeletal remains of early farmers and hunter-gatherers indicated that the latter had a better diet, but I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly or how much that observation generalizes.

Reply View 2 replies
  • sethammons 2 hours ago

    > most lived at subsistence levels with starvation always at their doorstep

    I find this hilarious. Modern civilization has starvation at our doorstep. If the modern supply chains fail, so very many would starve.

    Did toilet paper become scarce about 5 years ago? I don't see what protects the population from that for food and water.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • hollerith 2 hours ago

    Both early farmers and hunter-gatherers regularly endured calorie scarcity. The difference between them along this dimension is minor compared to the difference between either group and us and our calorie security.

    Reply View 0 replies
sorokod 5 hours ago

Can you conceive of how caring for the injured might have a benefit in an evolutionary / game theoretical sense?

Reply View 1 reply
  • kulahan an hour ago

    This is the right question to ask. You can reason your way around things, but occam's razor reigns supreme. Injured people can still do lots of work, as our most important tools were our brains, not our bodies. It's not hard to watch for predators near camp while sitting at the campfire, or to keep an eye on children - even if you can't resolve issues yourself. You could sit around making crafts for the tribe, repairing clothes, and more.

    There's just way too much benefit to keeping the injured around. We don't need everyone working at top physical condition... ever.

    Reply View 0 replies
jvanderbot 6 hours ago

This feels like video game analysis. Unit is likely to die, therefore do not spend resources on unit. Leave unit behind.

There is no world in which I would leave a family member or close friend to die in the woods alone, especially if I have no idea what germs are, why people die when they bleed, and am listening to a voice I have heard my whole live cry out in pain. Even if I knew for sure they were going to die, I would sit with them, or move them, or something.

Thought experiment: Would you visit your mother or father in the hospital knowing they were going to die that day? I mean there's nothing you can do, why bother??

Reply View 7 replies
  • cheeseomlit 6 hours ago

    It's not about writing off the injured due to their low odds of survival, its about your willingness to lower those odds for your other loved ones, or yourself. How does your thought experiment change when caring for your mother/father means your children might starve?

    Reply View 6 replies
    • monknomo 5 hours ago

      Look man, modern people die trying to save strangers from drowning. We can just see actual behavior, we don't need bloodless thought experiments

      Reply View 4 replies
      • cheeseomlit 5 hours ago

        Ok but for every person who tries to save a stranger from drowning how many other people choose not to? Probably not 0. If I saw a stranger drowning and they were larger than child-sized I probably wouldn't attempt it- apparently its pretty common for the drowning person to panic and use their savior as a raft, drowning them in the process

        Reply View 3 replies
    • senshan 5 hours ago

      Good way to look at it. More broadly, there must have been different groups that practiced different policies with regard to ill and injured. Some of the groups fared better than others. Since most of modern societies do care about their ill and injured, it appears that this policy proved more advantageous. Even if only slightly so.

      Reply View 0 replies