People slept on grass beds 200k years ago(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
People slept on grass beds 200k years ago
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/08/people-slept-on-comfy-grass-beds-200000-years-ago/
161 comments
The issue with this kind of reasoning is that without any kind of archeological proof to back your hypothesis what you end up with is informed guessing based more on ones knowledge and experience than on scientific facts.
For example, I could formulate a completely different hypothesis about how footwear appeared:
So yeah deduction and induction can get you very far but when we're missing so many facts on which to base our hypothesis you can easily get very far in a very wrong direction. This is why I think archeology is fun.
EDIT: The wikipedia page on footwear also contains a few lines that add another interesting dimension:
> Some ancient civilizations, such as Egypt and Greece however saw no practical need for footwear due to convenient climatic and landscape situations and used shoes primarily as ornaments and insignia of power.
For example, I could formulate a completely different hypothesis about how footwear appeared:
- doing any kind of activity on rough terrain while barefoot increases the risk of injury, like cuts or punctures
- any kind of wound could easily infect and lead to death
- the easiest would be to try and protect my feet wrapping something like leaves, animal skins, etc around my feet
- this is a good solution but this footwear isn't very resilient, hmm, maybe tree bark would work better, it's still flexible but should be more resilient.
- hmm, what else could I do that is better than tree bark, maybe some dried animal skin would be even better
- and so on...
So yeah deduction and induction can get you very far but when we're missing so many facts on which to base our hypothesis you can easily get very far in a very wrong direction. This is why I think archeology is fun.
EDIT: The wikipedia page on footwear also contains a few lines that add another interesting dimension:
> Some ancient civilizations, such as Egypt and Greece however saw no practical need for footwear due to convenient climatic and landscape situations and used shoes primarily as ornaments and insignia of power.
Fair enough, good points, but you’ll find that habitually unshod people have surprisingly thick (and yet still perfectly sensitive!) soles that are very resilient to puncture and yet do not experience pain when walking over terrain that makes us grimace. That doesn’t pertain to all of your hypotheses, and even those it does apply to are not ruled out by it, so I concede you could be correct, as could I. The real question is: which these(s) can be proven. That’s what’s interesting about this article: that they have found archeological evidence that supports an... I’m struggling not to use ‘obvious’ because I’ve been chided for using it... but a... very plausible hypothesis.
The article makes it pretty clear that they have the evidence to support their hypothesis about the history of bedding, so there's no question about that part :).
My point was more focused on your example about footwear and on the fact that just using deduction or other reasoning techniques without starting from real archeological proof can easily lead one astray.
So I'm not trying to compete on which hypothesis about footwear is better I just gave that example in support of the point I just mentioned above.
My point was more focused on your example about footwear and on the fact that just using deduction or other reasoning techniques without starting from real archeological proof can easily lead one astray.
So I'm not trying to compete on which hypothesis about footwear is better I just gave that example in support of the point I just mentioned above.
It's easy to say a technology should have been obvious in hindsight, but...grass beds? It would be more surprising to me if humans 200,000 years ago hadn't hit on that. Remember these are modern humans from an evolutionary point of view, as intelligent as us or close.
Birds make nests, after all. You could convince me bears or apes make beds of grass, too. It's cool to find evidence that humans did it, just not surprising.
Birds make nests, after all. You could convince me bears or apes make beds of grass, too. It's cool to find evidence that humans did it, just not surprising.
>You could convince me bears or apes make beds of grass, too
Apes build trees beds: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2012/04...
Apes build trees beds: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2012/04...
For someone congratulating themselves on their deductive skills, coming up with shoes = "portable floors" instead of just simple protection isn't a very impressive display of deductive reasoning.
Then you go on to be skeptical of other theories, but not your own convoluted, arbitrary theory because it presumably has something going for it that the others do not: you came up with it.
This just isn't the paragon of deduction and reasoning that you think it is. Though the self-aggrandizing spirit of your posts is a great show of how ideas traffic on social media where we confuse our ability to come up with something as something that must then contain some sort of axiomatic truth.
With an insight like "shoes = portable floors", you must think a babbling six-year-old is a real oracle of wisdom.
Then you go on to be skeptical of other theories, but not your own convoluted, arbitrary theory because it presumably has something going for it that the others do not: you came up with it.
This just isn't the paragon of deduction and reasoning that you think it is. Though the self-aggrandizing spirit of your posts is a great show of how ideas traffic on social media where we confuse our ability to come up with something as something that must then contain some sort of axiomatic truth.
With an insight like "shoes = portable floors", you must think a babbling six-year-old is a real oracle of wisdom.
Is making such deductions not a sub-form of anthropomorphism, though? (To whatever extent humans 200k years ago were different than us, I suppose.)
> Modern psychologists generally characterize anthropomorphism as a cognitive bias. That is, anthropomorphism is a cognitive process by which people use their schemas about other humans as a basis for inferring the properties of non-human entities in order to make efficient judgements about the environment, even if those inferences are not always accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
> Modern psychologists generally characterize anthropomorphism as a cognitive bias. That is, anthropomorphism is a cognitive process by which people use their schemas about other humans as a basis for inferring the properties of non-human entities in order to make efficient judgements about the environment, even if those inferences are not always accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
Except I’m making considerations about fellow humans, not non-human entities. Anthropomorphism doesn’t apply here (unless you subscribe to Jaynes’ surprisingly compelling hypothesis set forth in The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind which is controversial, fringe, supported by strangely compelling but also very circumstantial evidence, and hard to justify neurologically, that is).
I suppose I could be accused of a bunch of other fallacies, and those would be fair game.
I suppose I could be accused of a bunch of other fallacies, and those would be fair game.
If only the paleoanthropologists at the University of Witwatersrand had consulted you first they could have saved all this time!
(Don't say "of course" to experts. It's patronizing, and there's a good chance what is obvious to you is actually wrong.)
(Don't say "of course" to experts. It's patronizing, and there's a good chance what is obvious to you is actually wrong.)
Even when the obvious thing is right, there's a difference between an obvious conclusion arrived at by guessing and an obvious thing arrived at by scientific inquiry. The former is highly subject to bias, and indistinguishable from the wrong and obvious guess that accompanied it; the latter is less subject to bias, and can be distinguished from its wrong variant.
(To put it maybe more pithily, someone who believes an obvious thing has given me no new information, but someone who proves an obvious thing has given me new information. There's a reason science places so much weight on reproducibility, even though, eventually, it's just giving the 'obvious' result!)
(To put it maybe more pithily, someone who believes an obvious thing has given me no new information, but someone who proves an obvious thing has given me new information. There's a reason science places so much weight on reproducibility, even though, eventually, it's just giving the 'obvious' result!)
I wholly agree. Sorry if my initial post gave the opposite impression. I’m very much in favour of supporting hypotheses with evidence and discarding those which are incompatible with facts as observed.
You really think floors came before shoes did? Or is this a joke?
I’m pretty damned sure of it. Why would they do so otherwise when feet of the habitually-unshod are so perfectly adapted to walking on terrain? It’s not like (like in the case of clothes) they could see animals with warm furry coats and think “I want one of those”. You construct what you want to emulate. In the case of sandals, they wanted to emulate floors, not paws.
While the oldest shoes discovered are 7-8kya, the evolution of foot bone structure points to shoe-wearing as long ago as 40kya [1], predating the Neolithic.
It is very likely that shoes predate floors and were worn for easier travel over rough terrain.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe#History
It is very likely that shoes predate floors and were worn for easier travel over rough terrain.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe#History
Just FYI to all the shoe fascists, there's a guy Cody Lundin [1] who walks around barefoot all the time, even in freezing temperatures and does quite fine with it. I first found out about him as a survivalist author.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Lundin
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Lundin
Thanks for the reference and the comment, I really do appreciate it (and I’m not being sarcastic), but evidence of foot structure mutating 40,000 years ago as a conseuqnce of wearing shoes only undermines my theory if floors can be definitively placed later than that. As for the 7,000-8,000 year ago shoes, that’s well within the horizon of architecture, of which the earliest example we are aware of is Gobekli Tepe which is considered to be 13,000 years old.
We sleep on a bed made of wool batting enclosed in two sewed together wool blankets. It is super comfortable. I think most people would be better served by abandoning modern "inner-spring" mattresses
Seems similar to a japanese futon, though they are usually filled with cotton rather than wool.
Sleeping on a wool blanket seems dreadful in hot temperatures, though. Does it ever get to high 70s or more where you live?
Sleeping on a wool blanket seems dreadful in hot temperatures, though. Does it ever get to high 70s or more where you live?
> Does it ever get to high 70s or more where you live?
We live in Iowa. A quick look at the weather suggests that the high for this week is 86F.
90s aren't uncommon during the summer.
It usually cools off fairly significantly at night.
We don't use our AC except on the very hottest four or five days of the year, and always open the windows back up after supper if we did use the AC that day.
Wool is basically a miracle material in my opinion. The bed doesn't get hot. If you put a wool blanket on top of you, yes you will get too hot. But if you sleep either without a blanket or with a thin cotton on, it's really not bad.
Part of it might be that we are stubborn and counter-cultural, but also it's just a really comfortable bed and you can adjust to heat much easier than people accustomed to AC assume.
We live in Iowa. A quick look at the weather suggests that the high for this week is 86F.
90s aren't uncommon during the summer.
It usually cools off fairly significantly at night.
We don't use our AC except on the very hottest four or five days of the year, and always open the windows back up after supper if we did use the AC that day.
Wool is basically a miracle material in my opinion. The bed doesn't get hot. If you put a wool blanket on top of you, yes you will get too hot. But if you sleep either without a blanket or with a thin cotton on, it's really not bad.
Part of it might be that we are stubborn and counter-cultural, but also it's just a really comfortable bed and you can adjust to heat much easier than people accustomed to AC assume.
[deleted]
You probably need to be comfortable with harder mattresses. But I use a higher-end futon on a platform bed that is about 20 years old at this point. (I do also have a featherbed on top of that but TBH I actually fluff it and redistribute so seldom I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference.)
In Massachusetts, I don't have AC except (sometimes) in my office. I sleep on a pad downstairs a few days a year--I'm in the country--but usually the bedroom with a fan is fine by the time I'm going to bed.
In Massachusetts, I don't have AC except (sometimes) in my office. I sleep on a pad downstairs a few days a year--I'm in the country--but usually the bedroom with a fan is fine by the time I'm going to bed.
Do you know where we can buy a wool mattress?
We made ours, but Shepherds Dream is one place that I know of.
https://shepherdsdream.com/
https://shepherdsdream.com/
Was when the covid lockdown started, but I had to resort to credit card chargeback with them after ordering, not getting the item after expected delivery period, and getting no response at all from customer service after calling them multiple times over multiple weeks.
I think they must have gotten caught in the "not allowed to do business" category for a while.
We ordered and didn't hear anything back for a while, but then once we got an email saying they "accepted" our order, it shipped very quickly.
My wife had a question because they packaged things different than what we expected and they got back to us within an hour.
Which is to say, yes we also had slow service from them at the start of lockdown, but after things eased up a bit, they were very responsive.
We ordered and didn't hear anything back for a while, but then once we got an email saying they "accepted" our order, it shipped very quickly.
My wife had a question because they packaged things different than what we expected and they got back to us within an hour.
Which is to say, yes we also had slow service from them at the start of lockdown, but after things eased up a bit, they were very responsive.
> It usually cools off fairly significantly at night.
Ah, yes; I meant at night. We had summers of high 80s around midnight, and high 70s are reasonably common. We also don't have AC, but frankly despite being born and raised here, I could never adjust to the heat.
I've been meaning to try a futon when I replace my current mattress; I will consider wool, thanks!
Ah, yes; I meant at night. We had summers of high 80s around midnight, and high 70s are reasonably common. We also don't have AC, but frankly despite being born and raised here, I could never adjust to the heat.
I've been meaning to try a futon when I replace my current mattress; I will consider wool, thanks!
> Part of it might be that we are stubborn and counter-cultural
Since you said "we" I'm going to assume you have a SO, which begs the question of how's this setup with sex? If thought of making this transition before, but while this seems nice for sleeping it doesn't seem like it'd be that nice for sexy time.
Since you said "we" I'm going to assume you have a SO, which begs the question of how's this setup with sex? If thought of making this transition before, but while this seems nice for sleeping it doesn't seem like it'd be that nice for sexy time.
Seems most people are buying foam mattresses these days, not spring?
A lot of hybrids also (springs with a foam topper). There is also latex spring.
My old internally sprung mattress did me great for years but finally sprang a spring and that was that.
Got a modern foam mattress as they were all the thing, a very well reviewed one, and regretted it ever since. It rapidly developed a sag under my quite moderate weight, and it keeps in heat rather well so in summer you cook. My advice is, don't. My next mattress will be the old fashioned sprung ones again. IME, YMMV.
Got a modern foam mattress as they were all the thing, a very well reviewed one, and regretted it ever since. It rapidly developed a sag under my quite moderate weight, and it keeps in heat rather well so in summer you cook. My advice is, don't. My next mattress will be the old fashioned sprung ones again. IME, YMMV.
Was it memory foam or latex?
I didn't know you could get latex. Never heard of it. Looking at the mattress it just looks like a normal foamy stuff, yellowish colour, if that tells you anything.
I think memory foam gets warm and deforms. Latex should be firmer and keep cool. I haven't really tried different materials so this is just from researching online.
emma (german I think) bought it on spain.
Just launched a springy version at a 3x price-tag though!
Got the cheaper foamy one
Just launched a springy version at a 3x price-tag though!
Got the cheaper foamy one
[deleted]
I'm waiting for sleeping in hammocks to catch on here. Soon, there'll be an article espousing easy summer sleeping and the more vertical position making for easier breathing. I do sleep in one but it'll be funny to see.
Want to ruin your back? Here's how...
For many couples, a bed is used not only for sleeping but also for recreation. I could see the novelty of a hammock wearing off quickly.
"recreation" can be had in many places.
In case anyone reads this:
One of the best things my wife and I have done in the past year was to switch to each of us having our own set of sheets. It's amazing. Highly recommended.
In case anyone reads this:
One of the best things my wife and I have done in the past year was to switch to each of us having our own set of sheets. It's amazing. Highly recommended.
Sounds like a very interesting piece of advice, but I'm not entirely sure what you're saying.
Do you have two twin mattresses side-by-side, each with its own set of sheets?
Do you have two twin mattresses side-by-side, each with its own set of sheets?
We share a bed, we just each have a set of blankets.
This is probably only feasible because we sleep on the floor, which means the blankets don't tend to wander in the night.
Lots of covers stealing other blanket shenanigans have been avoided in the past year though from that change.
This is probably only feasible because we sleep on the floor, which means the blankets don't tend to wander in the night.
Lots of covers stealing other blanket shenanigans have been avoided in the past year though from that change.
But "standing up in a hammock" -- punch line for a 1970s Dave Allen bit demonstrating how to brag.
Waterbeds have also been popular at various times. (I had one for a number of years but got rid of it after I moved into an old house.)
Does anyone manufacture these? Or do you have a photo?
We bought our batting from Shepherd's Dream [1], which looks like it also sells actual beds.
The blankets are just queen sized wool blankets that you can find various places.
We made our bed in the winter of 2013/2014. We used 5 wool blankets with a layer of "2yd extra thick wool batting" between each pair of blankets.
It starts out very thick, but compresses down to probably 2-3 inches thick over time.
We just made a set of similar beds for our three kids, but we used 3 yards of wool and a single queen sized wool blanket folded in half for the exterior.
I will see if I can get some pictures.
Happy to answer questions either here or at the email in my profile if people are interested.
[1] https://shepherdsdream.com/
Edit:
The blankets might actually be twin sized.
Their dimensions are very close to the footprint of a standard queen bed. So I think that means they are a size down since usually blankets will overhang the mattress.
The blankets are just queen sized wool blankets that you can find various places.
We made our bed in the winter of 2013/2014. We used 5 wool blankets with a layer of "2yd extra thick wool batting" between each pair of blankets.
It starts out very thick, but compresses down to probably 2-3 inches thick over time.
We just made a set of similar beds for our three kids, but we used 3 yards of wool and a single queen sized wool blanket folded in half for the exterior.
I will see if I can get some pictures.
Happy to answer questions either here or at the email in my profile if people are interested.
[1] https://shepherdsdream.com/
Edit:
The blankets might actually be twin sized.
Their dimensions are very close to the footprint of a standard queen bed. So I think that means they are a size down since usually blankets will overhang the mattress.
Those prices are ridiculous
One thousand dollars is a normal price for a good, new mattress.
They aren't $1000. The queen is $2185.
Even the twin is $1,495.
You can get a really nice foam queen for like $600.
Even the twin is $1,495.
You can get a really nice foam queen for like $600.
Well, we made ours. The total cost was probably in the range of $600
I believe they are both:
1. A small business that basically does all the work by hand
and
2. Catering to a very niche market of upper-middle-class folks.
They sell raw materials for more reasonable prices. Labor gets expensive real quick.
1. A small business that basically does all the work by hand
and
2. Catering to a very niche market of upper-middle-class folks.
They sell raw materials for more reasonable prices. Labor gets expensive real quick.
The best mattress I ever had was soft fine sand in the curve of a dry gulch, after weeks of sleeping on hard ground on a long hike. It was also one of the stupidest places I've slept since a flash flood could have ended me.
But if I had to sleep rough in one place for long I might build a sand box bed. If the ancients did that I doubt archaeologists would discover it, since it's just a pile of sand.
But if I had to sleep rough in one place for long I might build a sand box bed. If the ancients did that I doubt archaeologists would discover it, since it's just a pile of sand.
Thw worst sleep I ever had was on the beach in Bermuda. It ended up being far cooler than expected (with a breeze blowing from the sea) so I had to bury myself in the sand. Due to the cold I had to wear a motorcycle helmet to keep my head warm. Also, in the morning I realized my shorts were filled with ants which was a pretty horrific awakening...
Oh dear... I'm twitching
Interesting. One of the worst sleeps I have had was on a fine sand bed. It was on the floor of an old, abandoned sand mine. The sand was so fine that it sort of just packed under you and didn't move. Perhaps it was a different kind of sand than you experienced.
I would love to hear the story behind this.
Not too much story to it. It was just a Boy Scout outing. We usually tried to do interesting and adventurous stuff for our outdoor activities since we were in a rural area with lots of nature to explore.
I use granite slab as my bed.
In winters I heat it from below using silicone temperature controlled mats.
Am I the only one who prefers flat and hard bed?
Granite is my bed and mattress.
In winters I heat it from below using silicone temperature controlled mats.
Am I the only one who prefers flat and hard bed?
Granite is my bed and mattress.
My apologies for the following, but this is something I have never heard of. I have many questions
I tried googling but the beds seem to be stone but you then place a mattress on.
Doesn't it hurt your bones when you wake up in the morning? How long have you slept on it? Is it in a frame or straight on the floor? Is your floor specially supported or is it thin like a kitchen bench top?
I tried googling but the beds seem to be stone but you then place a mattress on.
Doesn't it hurt your bones when you wake up in the morning? How long have you slept on it? Is it in a frame or straight on the floor? Is your floor specially supported or is it thin like a kitchen bench top?
Dude, you might be a lizard.
When the temperature drops below a certain point you can find him sleeping underneath the granite slab.
I have a ridiculously bad back (as does my father) and have developed a large variety of tricks to minimize pain. One is I sleep on a maximally firm futon. When I go on trips, if the bed I’m sleeping in is too soft, I lay a blanket on hard wood and sleep on it. I sleep very well this way. A slab of granite would be fine as a bed.
If I was ever put in a dungeon, at least I would sleep soundly on the concrete floor!
If I was ever put in a dungeon, at least I would sleep soundly on the concrete floor!
> A slab of granite would be fine as a bed.
To clarify -- I assume you mean only with the blanket, right? Or are you fine sleeping on it directly too?
To clarify -- I assume you mean only with the blanket, right? Or are you fine sleeping on it directly too?
No! I love sleeping on hard flat surfaces!
Did you make your own bed?
Did you make your own bed?
I do not do it any more due to change in environment (my abode), but earlier once every few months, I would take a thin comforter below me, one thin comforter above me, and all that on the carpeted floor. Any time I had a back pain, I knew this was the way to fix it.
Also, my mattresses used to be firm. Somehow my last 2 mattresses have become saggy after just over a year. I dumped the first one, but now wondering what to do for the second one and with the covid situation and not everything open, I just have not had the time to chase things, and my mental estimate is that my body requires one hour less sleep (I am not pushing it, that's how it ends up) on a firm mattress.
Also, my mattresses used to be firm. Somehow my last 2 mattresses have become saggy after just over a year. I dumped the first one, but now wondering what to do for the second one and with the covid situation and not everything open, I just have not had the time to chase things, and my mental estimate is that my body requires one hour less sleep (I am not pushing it, that's how it ends up) on a firm mattress.
I sleep on my camping cot or hammock full time. I should buy a sand box.
Be sure to factor in the cost of a cat-proof fence or your sandbox will become disgusting place pretty quickly.
as in you are lying directly on the sand without a separating sheet? i can believe that this is comfortable but only until the first sand gets into clothes, cracks and cavities. or how does it work?
In a sleeping bag. I just shook it out as usual before stuffing it.
what do you mean with "stuffing it"? you put the sand into the sleeping bag?
When you put away a sleeping bag, you stuff it into a little sack. He's saying that he slept in the sleeping bag in the sand, woke up, shook out his bag, and put it away.
I've napped on sand at the beach. Yes it gets everywhere. Then you shake it all off, or take a dip in the water.
I've seen a few campgrounds with dedicated tent sites that each had a tent-size sandbox.
Some indigenous desert people of Australia speak of certain desert sand types being very warm and soft and healthy to sleep directly on where as most other types being bad and unhealty to sleep directly on
Sorry i don't have a reference
Sorry i don't have a reference
If money is no object: https://www.hypnosbeds.com/us
It's a bad idea to romanticize the lives of paleolithic peoples. They may have had cozy beds, but it's likely these people were:
- thirsty (no tech for carrying water)
- hot (no air conditioning)
- hungry (hunter gatherers don't eat every day)
- practicing "open defecation"
- covered with insect bites
- riddled with intestinal parasites
- frequently sick (no vaccines/antibiotics)
- one compound fracture away from death by sepsis
and liable to be murdered by humans from other tribes or, according to some studies, possibly from your own if you ever stop pulling your weight.
- thirsty (no tech for carrying water)
- hot (no air conditioning)
- hungry (hunter gatherers don't eat every day)
- practicing "open defecation"
- covered with insect bites
- riddled with intestinal parasites
- frequently sick (no vaccines/antibiotics)
- one compound fracture away from death by sepsis
and liable to be murdered by humans from other tribes or, according to some studies, possibly from your own if you ever stop pulling your weight.
Even worse, they only worked a couple of hours a day, and goofed off the rest of the time. So unproductive!
One of the nice things for me about living on a large ranch is that it's no problem to "practice open defecation" on a regular basis. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
One of the nice things for me about living on a large ranch is that it's no problem to "practice open defecation" on a regular basis. Don't knock it until you've tried it.
Only works for extremely low density living (which is really only practical with the help of modern amenities). Doesn’t work that well for places like India.
Anthropologists before and in our lifetimes have gone and lived with tribes of hunter gatherers. We don’t need to romanticize or use cliches. Lots of them weren’t living as you describe. In fact their eyesight, teeth/gums, mental health, general physical health, sex lives, and life satisfaction seemed pretty great sometimes, and there’s interesting points to be made about why modernity might not have all the answers.
Let’s take your poop example. The average American, depressed and overweight according to the stats (both conditions rarely recorded in interactions with tribal hunter gatherers), poops in a toilet, they don’t “practice open defecation” (what funny phrasing). And that’s bad for you. We know now that if you don’t squat, it makes you strain (people literally die on toilets straining to poop) and you can’t get it all out. So we’ve invented poop stools. You should get one, it’s fantastic by the way, you’ll never poop the same again. This is just one of the many ways supposedly superior modern living has essentially played us, and our inventions solve problems that progress creates in the first place!
You’re right in some ways. I’m not a believer in “noble savages“. Modern sanitation is responsible probably more than anything for humanities success so far. But it’s a subtle topic.
Let’s take your poop example. The average American, depressed and overweight according to the stats (both conditions rarely recorded in interactions with tribal hunter gatherers), poops in a toilet, they don’t “practice open defecation” (what funny phrasing). And that’s bad for you. We know now that if you don’t squat, it makes you strain (people literally die on toilets straining to poop) and you can’t get it all out. So we’ve invented poop stools. You should get one, it’s fantastic by the way, you’ll never poop the same again. This is just one of the many ways supposedly superior modern living has essentially played us, and our inventions solve problems that progress creates in the first place!
You’re right in some ways. I’m not a believer in “noble savages“. Modern sanitation is responsible probably more than anything for humanities success so far. But it’s a subtle topic.
Thumbs up for poop stools :)
Don't forget about a lot of women dying during childbirth. I also wonder about attitudes about stuff like child (sexual) abuse and rape (it seems that the literature is contentious about this stuff).
That sounds right. Except if you see encounters with the aboriginals of Australia, they looked in great health and had remedies for a lot of the problems above. Wet mud on the skin for insect bites, slippers made out of leaves etc.
Interesting old HN discussion on mattresses in case anyone is planning to buy some:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22376248
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22376248
The ref I was looking for. Thanks!
The DOI link in the article is broken, but if anybody is interested, the original paper appeared in Science: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/863 (paywalled)
There are several websites that can help get around this paywall :)
There are several websites that can help get around this paywall :)
Reading these comments seems pretty similar to listening to a podcast ad. Just saying.
once many years ago went hiking into forest (Russian North West) with minimal gear (knife, lighter, fishing thread and hooks, several SPAMs and some bread). For 3 nights i slept on a very comfortable pile of fir tree branches ("lapnik") by the campfire under a fir tree - so even small rain actually didn't reach me. It was late Spring, pretty warm. For winter time it is pretty established practice to sleep right on top of the extinguished campfire.
Speaking of mattresses - my wife has already close to 20 years been sleeping on a Japanese rice straw tatami mats (put onto a nice real wood frame), and she loves it. A bit too tough for me though.
Speaking of mattresses - my wife has already close to 20 years been sleeping on a Japanese rice straw tatami mats (put onto a nice real wood frame), and she loves it. A bit too tough for me though.
Yo how do I gain the skills to do something like that? Sounds awesome.
it isn't really considered a skills, it is kind of in the air surrounding you. For example i didn't take nor toothpaste nor toothbrush - it isn't an omission nor i'm anti-hygienic - instead i used small fir sticks to chew and to pick between and clean the teeth - the resin has mild anti-microbial properties and have that nice smell. Such possibility was mentioned to me once by a friend, one of the strongest mathematicians in our year, a city dweller, when we were taking a walk around campus (if memory serves me right it was in the context of discussing such a practice in some region(s) in India where a local plant is used for that purpose ).
It is somewhat puzzling and sad that despite large territory and amazingly rich Nature, there is such a profound separation from Nature in US. Almost all the land is private, and even if not it is still mostly fenced with limited access and permits for everything (and naturally the very few available places are overcrowded because of such a [pretty artificial] scarcity). Limited access to land also naturally affects access to water bodies. You can't just come to a body of water and say go for swim if water is clean, like you'd do say in Russia. From US land rights system POV even the Nordic private property system with "right to roam" looks like communism :)
It is somewhat puzzling and sad that despite large territory and amazingly rich Nature, there is such a profound separation from Nature in US. Almost all the land is private, and even if not it is still mostly fenced with limited access and permits for everything (and naturally the very few available places are overcrowded because of such a [pretty artificial] scarcity). Limited access to land also naturally affects access to water bodies. You can't just come to a body of water and say go for swim if water is clean, like you'd do say in Russia. From US land rights system POV even the Nordic private property system with "right to roam" looks like communism :)
"Almost all" isn't really accurate, as a substantial chunk of the US is actually federally-held public land (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_federal_land.agencies....). Most of this, such as basically everything organized under the Bureau of Land Management, is available for public use with no permits or other restrictions beyond what amounts to 'don't damage the land' rules. That's before accounting for state-held public land, of which there's also a significant amount.
Good points there, very interesting about the way other countries respect their land as a shared gift.
The US is huge though, there are some areas that are completely remote for hundreds of miles.
The US is huge though, there are some areas that are completely remote for hundreds of miles.
How do you deal with ticks?
i heard about them, never met :) They do exist in Russia, yet frequency of encounters seems to be low. An important factor is probably that weather there is colder (and usually wetter) than say here plus mosquitoes so going into the forest you usually have all your body covered.
If you're interested in how ancient humans lived, I recommend "The Old Way: A Story of the First People" by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, who lived among the hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari. It has a nice mix of information, narrative, and hypothesis. Grass beds are one of the first things she talks about.
It sounds rather a lot less pleasant when you describe it as a straw pallet.
That said, early humans that managed to survive childhood most likely had generally pleasant lives. That and their average level of physical fitness based on archeological evidence would rate at the elite level today. I recall reading about a fossilized set of footprints in Australia that indicated a foot speed that would shame Usain Bolt, and presumably fossilization doesn’t have a foot speed bias.
That said, early humans that managed to survive childhood most likely had generally pleasant lives. That and their average level of physical fitness based on archeological evidence would rate at the elite level today. I recall reading about a fossilized set of footprints in Australia that indicated a foot speed that would shame Usain Bolt, and presumably fossilization doesn’t have a foot speed bias.
>I recall reading about a fossilized set of footprints in Australia that indicated a foot speed that would shame Usain Bolt
I can't help but feel that guy must have really been scared by something.
I can't help but feel that guy must have really been scared by something.
Welp, down I go the rabbit hole of looking for how one might guess the speed of a runner from foot prints
[deleted]
Or he was hunting, and something was really scared by him.
I think clever hunting should not require alot of running, as a human.
In Hooked, Nir Eyal talked about a tribe in South Africa whose members hunt a particular animal (I forgot its name) by running behind it for 8 hours straight.
This works for many larger animals. Humans have the benefit of being able to sweat and regulate our body temperature efficiently so all we need to do it chase the animal until it overheats and is exhausted. I'm not sure of the animal you were hearing about, but for many animals this would be way less than 8hrs (probably even as little as 10 minutes, maybe less).
Usually, that was rather a mix of walking, walking fast, and the occasional jog. The animal just broke down from exhaustion in the end, exactly _because_ it had been running all day.
Humans can out run and hunt down most animals because we evolved hairless sweating for cooling.
(Persistance hunting)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
(Persistance hunting)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
However that doesn't require being faster than Usain Bolt and actually works because we are better at long distance running than short sprints.
Humans were good at long distance running hunting
> early humans that managed to survive childhood most likely had generally pleasant lives
Well, of course: they'd never live long enough to become weak, whiny, and regretful.
Well, of course: they'd never live long enough to become weak, whiny, and regretful.
One idea put forth in Civilized to Death is that this sentiment is a mis-meme stemming from the common knowledge that average life spans have increased in modern times.
That while, sure, the average has gone up, this is primarily due to decreases in infant mortality rates. So there’s a plethora of zeros skewing down the average for “back then”.
That is, if you survived through childhood back then, you’d likely expect to live just about as long as everyone today.
That while, sure, the average has gone up, this is primarily due to decreases in infant mortality rates. So there’s a plethora of zeros skewing down the average for “back then”.
That is, if you survived through childhood back then, you’d likely expect to live just about as long as everyone today.
Yep. Averages don't tell you much unless you know the shape of the distribution.
> That is, if you survived through childhood back then, you’d likely expect to live just about as long as everyone today.
Somehow I doubt that very much. I grew up in an emerging economy. Between the last few decades, life expectancy at birth went up from mid 50s to high 60s. Infant mortality went down, but not enough to cause the rise in life expectancy.
Anecdotally, I know most of my immediate family didn't make it past 70, but that's changing now. Relatively simple to treat chronic diseases such as cardiac issues and diabetes got them.
Somehow I doubt that very much. I grew up in an emerging economy. Between the last few decades, life expectancy at birth went up from mid 50s to high 60s. Infant mortality went down, but not enough to cause the rise in life expectancy.
Anecdotally, I know most of my immediate family didn't make it past 70, but that's changing now. Relatively simple to treat chronic diseases such as cardiac issues and diabetes got them.
I’m not arguing one way or another, these are all very broad claims in both directions.
But if you’re interested, that books also speculates that many such health issues, including the above, are relatively recent human ailments brought on by the modern diet facilitated by agriculture.
But if you’re interested, that books also speculates that many such health issues, including the above, are relatively recent human ailments brought on by the modern diet facilitated by agriculture.
I’d wonder if that’s orthogonal to the issue at hand though - Native American tribes experienced a glut of such diseases when they began transitioning onto anglo-Saxon style diets. We know that many communities across the world nowadays achieve advanced years by having simple diets and strong communities, and hunter-gatherers had that + rigorous exercise. As another comment on this page states, the typical hunter-gatherer was leagues more physically fit than the average person today.
As a counterpoint, the industrial revolution drastically dropped urban life expectancies.
I had recently read a book about the 1918 flu, and it had made the point that these urban cities, at the time, required a constant influx of workers, just to replace those deceased.
So, to actually increase the labor pool, required a tremendous amount of human life.
So, to actually increase the labor pool, required a tremendous amount of human life.
I’ve read the same thing about Ancient Rome. It required a high influx of people because life expectancy in the city was so short.
I suspect the higher disease loads and lower fertility rate had a lot to do with that. But maybe not that things were better in rural villages either. Considering all of history rural areas had higher but the population wasn't increasing very fast. That is until you had mechanized farming.
In visits to a number of developing countries I’ve made the same observation: driving from the wealthy, developed part where we were staying, out of the city and into the countryside I’d notice that the very worst poverty seemed to be not in the (technically poorest) countryside where the old, rural life still went on, but on the edges of modernity. The people at the edges of the city had left behind the benefits of the traditional way of life — being self-sustainable, ok nutrition, good air etc. — and were really only experiencing the drawbacks of modern life; few of the benefits.
It’s only a personal observation, but in my reading of history I wonder if the same pattern applies.
It’s only a personal observation, but in my reading of history I wonder if the same pattern applies.
I remember as a child an elderly relative of mine talked about how there were no restaurants in his day, and I just assumed that restaurants hadn't reached his part of the world until recently. It turns out some of the world's oldest restaurants are from his part of the world, and that he simply grew up during a very unstable time. Your experience may be similar to his.
If you're talking up to a couple thousands years ago (Medieval up to Roman times), it was possible to live pretty long if you were wealthy enough to afford food and shelter. For reference many well known greek writers reached 70+.
If you're talking prehistoric times, the food supply was very limited with no agriculture and no trade. You'd die of food shortage sooner rather than later, physically unable to hunt or to keep up with the nomadic tribe.
That is assuming that one didn't die because of war or disease. Most infections meant certain death with no antibiotics.
If you're talking prehistoric times, the food supply was very limited with no agriculture and no trade. You'd die of food shortage sooner rather than later, physically unable to hunt or to keep up with the nomadic tribe.
That is assuming that one didn't die because of war or disease. Most infections meant certain death with no antibiotics.
The decline in infant mortality had a huge effect, but more people today are living to their 70s and 80s than most of human history.
People definitely lived into their 60s - 80s centuries ago, but they also used to die a lot more often from infections, disease, accidents etc. Public health infrastructure (clean water and sewage), antibiotics, vaccines and drugs like statins have all helped a lot.
Here's a fascinating chart on date of death of US women in 1933 vs. 2014. The distribution of age at death is narrowing, and more women are making it to old age: https://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/127460_...
Maximum life expectancy though, has unfortunately remained extremely steady. It is very unlikely that anyone reading this will live past 105 without a massive tech breakthrough.
People definitely lived into their 60s - 80s centuries ago, but they also used to die a lot more often from infections, disease, accidents etc. Public health infrastructure (clean water and sewage), antibiotics, vaccines and drugs like statins have all helped a lot.
Here's a fascinating chart on date of death of US women in 1933 vs. 2014. The distribution of age at death is narrowing, and more women are making it to old age: https://media.eurekalert.org/multimedia_prod/pub/web/127460_...
Maximum life expectancy though, has unfortunately remained extremely steady. It is very unlikely that anyone reading this will live past 105 without a massive tech breakthrough.
We're you referring to pallets used in warehouses/shipping? I think they're using a different definition, i.e. "a straw-filled tick or mattress", "a small, hard or temporary bed".
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pallet
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pallet
>their average level of physical fitness based on archeological evidence would rate at the elite level today
you don't see a contradiction between "pleasant life" and top fitness? I mean what can be a reason that the average was such a high level of physical fitness? May it be that "pleasant life" was so rife with challenges and dangers that only top fitness allowed for survival?
you don't see a contradiction between "pleasant life" and top fitness? I mean what can be a reason that the average was such a high level of physical fitness? May it be that "pleasant life" was so rife with challenges and dangers that only top fitness allowed for survival?
You are not at a high fitness level without a decent food supply.
That is thriving, not simply surviving.
That is thriving, not simply surviving.
you have to imagine we mostly descended from the groups which thrived and not the ones who eked by
Imagine a life where you had to strenuously hunt for 30 hours a week and then partied for the rest of the time. It’d result in both a high level of physical fitness and be pretty pleasant. I don’t know if that’s an accurate description of their life, but it shows that the two terms aren’t contradictory.
's/hunt/study/' and that is our University years. While definitely pleasant, it didn't result in high mental fitness though :)
We'll that explains why stone toolkits stayed pretty similar for thousands of years. Ancient hunter gatherers were a bunch of frat boys with some elders (that can still move with the hunting band/clan) leading them.
City living aren't that healthy (especially in the Neolithic) but you have lots of time to make new things... And use them in the future instead of needing to abandon them when your band moves on.
City living aren't that healthy (especially in the Neolithic) but you have lots of time to make new things... And use them in the future instead of needing to abandon them when your band moves on.
> early humans that managed to survive childhood
As a new parent (14 m.o.), I keep wondering, how did early humans - in the pre-language, pre-writing times - managed to survive, given how much care and supervision small babies require?
As a new parent (14 m.o.), I keep wondering, how did early humans - in the pre-language, pre-writing times - managed to survive, given how much care and supervision small babies require?
Living in groups, and having more babies (i.e. child birth rates always drop when conditions in a country improve)
Are you trying to achieve things more complex than pick nuts and berries up off the ground and eat them?
Not die through picking up the wrong nuts and berries and eating them. Small kids try to eat literally anything they can get their hands on.
Also, prior to the evolution of language it would make sense for the children to be born a little more battle (still useless, but relative to what they will develop into) ready whereas a modern child is born requires some form of education be that in hunting or surgery.
[deleted]
It takes a village. Back in those days, humans lived in tribes and worked together to survive. Parents also had a lot of children, most of which died.
They didn’t live in isolation like Western societies do today.
My oldest took a lot of care and I was fairly cash strapped. He was constantly on my hip or strapped to my chest while I did things all day.
You can get a lot of menial labor done with an infant in tow while giving them attention.
You can get a lot of menial labor done with an infant in tow while giving them attention.
Does anyone know any details about how the archaeologist derived foot speed from ancient fossilized footprints? I've come across this before but took it with a big pinch of salt.
I’d imagine spacing of prints, how the foot engaged with the ground, depth of print, etc...
I assume it’s mainly first year calculus since the defining characteristic of running is that it’s repeated launching. Since the downward vector of gravity is a constant I’d imagine a foot to same foot distance is sufficient to solve for speed.
And this is just my first thought as a semi-educated layman. I have no doubt the experts who study these things think of and solve for many other factors. I may not be able to reproduce their work but I can judge it plausible.
And this is just my first thought as a semi-educated layman. I have no doubt the experts who study these things think of and solve for many other factors. I may not be able to reproduce their work but I can judge it plausible.
> I’d imagine a foot to same foot distance is sufficient to solve for speed.
There surely must be an assumption about leg length, and that the person wasn't just playing some hop-scotch style game with long, slow, bounding strides. I think I'd need quite strong evidence to convince me that ancient humans were as fast as someone with modern nutrition and training. Especially as (unless I'm mistaken) there's no indication that people in hunter gatherer lifestyles today are particularly fast.
There surely must be an assumption about leg length, and that the person wasn't just playing some hop-scotch style game with long, slow, bounding strides. I think I'd need quite strong evidence to convince me that ancient humans were as fast as someone with modern nutrition and training. Especially as (unless I'm mistaken) there's no indication that people in hunter gatherer lifestyles today are particularly fast.
A large stride doesn't equal a faster speed. A large stride is beneficial to a mid-distance pace like 800m or mile, but for sprints you'd want faster turnover with shorter more powerful strides.
[deleted]
I'm trying to understand the moderation policies here. Why was the word 'comfy' removed from the HN title even though it's part of the article's title? When I checked HN a few hours ago the word 'comfy' was definitely there.
On a related note, I recently tried floor sleeping. I started on a carpet, which was nice. Then we moved to a place with hardwood floors. Painful. So I bought a Japanese futon. I don’t feel much desire to return to the modern mattress. Since I began this experiment, I’ve only slept better and felt better than I did sleeping on various such mattresses over the years.
I've noticed my allergies are more severe when sleeping on the floor. I believe more dust settles on the futon and bedding if it's directly on the floor.
Platform beds are great, and there are quite minimal ones. It improved my allergies.
Platform beds are great, and there are quite minimal ones. It improved my allergies.
And a benefit of a Japanese futon is that you can store it in the closet and use the floor space for other functions during the day.
> 200k years ago
Oh, really? And what evidence do we have about anything this distant?
Oh, really? And what evidence do we have about anything this distant?
If I remember correctly horse hide keeps the fleas away. Remember that from a book I read on the Mongols.
Take out the organs and bones of a pig, rub it with salt stuff it with straw..best mattress ever.
http://store.michaelyamashita.com/media/5c5bc58c-418e-11e3-b...
http://store.michaelyamashita.com/media/5c5bc58c-418e-11e3-b...
Also: people at some point discovered they could lay down floors, because it felt good underfoot. Then they realised that floors would be great to have in more places. Then somebody came up with the idea of making mobile pieces of floor and strapping them to the underside of your feet. And so, sandals and footwear were born.
Archeological records are good, but deduction will get you a surprisingly long way.