I'm sure you're familiar with Daniel Pink's work. He argues in his books that what makes work intrinsically rewarding are mastery, autonomy and purpose--very similar to the what makes the "work" of hunter-gatherers so much different than what we refer to as "work" under Fordism or postindustrial capitalism.
It's also worth noting that hunter-gatherers don't have clocks or deadlines, and the contribution of their work to their collective survival and well-being is readily apparent, unlike our own alienated labor. Even today, jobs that involve helping people directly are very much desired. As David Graeber noted, there's a sense that if work is inherently rewarding, then it's okay for the people who do that work to be poorly compensated. He also famously documented the large number of jobs in our society that even the people who did them felt shouldn't exist ("Bullshit Jobs").
It's a cruel logic that purposeful work is an incentive that can be used cynically as compensation en lieu of pay. This isn't always the case e.g. surgeons are paid well, but it holds across many vocations and professions.
Graber's theory of bullshit jobs is well intentioned but underdeveloped. I've been a personal assistant, for example, and it wasn't purposeful work but it was very useful for the person I was assisting. I suppose we could automate away attendants and concierges, but humans are preferable in most positions to an answering machine, even a shiny one from Silicon Valley. What you're paying for isn't necessarily humans doing routine tasks, it's human capacity for problem solving when the routine task is disrupted by a novel situation which can be managed at their level.
“In theory, at least, the toil today can be done by machines and we should be free to do the creative, social, joyful tasks.”
I have an inkling that some of the reason this is not happening is that society and our educational system dampens the ability for children to develop their social skills fully, too many are developing and relying on artificial social relationships online and our sense of community has declined. I am eager to see what you have to say!
Love this article! I am curious if you have thoughts about human social status, and especially how that ties into the theme of play? Reading this letter I kept thinking of status, especially of the man who hunted 80% of the meat. My guess would be that, although all physical resources were shared equally, he was held in higher esteem by his tribe mates than the men who did not hunt... although perhaps those men had other ways to gain status, and that was part of why they did not feel the need to hunt! Humans have such deep instincts for status and in my opinion, sorting through these types of situations is one of the biggest reasons why.
I think it is also related to Robin Hanson's forager vs farmer ethics if you are familiar with that theory. Hunter gatherers are very strict about prohibiting dominance (one form of social status) between people, but rely heavily on prestige (another form of status) to regulate relationships among the group. It also ties in to your feeling that we are now emerging from a period of non-play/dominance based society into one more about play/prestige. Would love to hear your thoughts on the status angle or any of these specifics!
Excellent points and analyses, Peter. Thank you for writing this. I was very much looking forward to it after reading your last letter, and I am now very much looking forward to your next one.
I met with someone recently for a "philosophical inquiry" session about some deep uncertainties I'm experiencing re: (1) my job with an organization focused on highlighting progress in the world and (2) my growing skepticism that such a thing as absolute progress exists or is wise to pursue or cheer.
As I see it, what we call progress is really just a long string of changes and trade-offs, where some things get better (when viewed through a narrow lens) while other things get worse and/or new problems arise that require more progress—and on and on it goes. E.g., we make advancements that reduce the prevalence of infectious diseases but introduce and increase the prevalence of chronic diseases; we increase life expectancy but in doing so become more atomized and decrease wellbeing; or to borrow from your letters, we improve, in theory, work conditions while also making work more parts toil than play; or we grow the economy and bring more people into it while at the same time making it essential for many to commit to lives of toil and productivity.
I'm hopeful that tech advancements *could*—in theory—do the toil and leave us "free to do the creative, social, joyful tasks," as you mentioned. But I will admit that I'm skeptical, in the same way that I think people were right to be skeptical that social media would make us more connected.
I hope I'm proven wrong, and I'm doing my best to stay open to that possibility.
In any case, I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter.
Humans have a built-in calibration process that adjusts our subjective baseline for what constitutes good living i.e. the hedonic treadmill. The things that make us happy are not necessarily the things that feel good in the moment.
That's for sure re: happiness. From an evolutionary perspective, I'm not even convinced that happiness is what we want. Even if it is, there's certainly no stability to be found there. Nothing that makes us happy will go on making us happy for very long or without interruption.
Add to this your point about the hedonic treadmill. Then sprinkle in some concept creep (https://dtg.sites.fas.harvard.edu/LEVARI2018COMPLETE.pdf), particularly of the kind in which social problems "seem intractable in part because reductions in their prevalence lead people to see more of them," and my doubts about progress and its pursuit only grow.
Hi Peter, I’m a play based educator. I’m based in NZ & am fascinated around your research around suicide & academic pressure. We have the highest youth suicide rates of any developed country due perhaps to childhood poverty & abuse, play is still common on our beaches & streets and our academic system doesn’t seem too pressured. What are your thoughts on our immense issue with youth suicide?
Sonia, this is a very interesting (and sobering) question. I know little about NZ, but I just looked up the suicide data for 15-19-year-olds on the New Zealand Health Ministry date site. clearly the dynamics of youth suicide are different in NZ than in the US. In NZ youth suicide held quite steady from the years 2009 to 2022, a period in which suicides for this age group were sharply increasing in the US. I also see data indicating that for all age groups suicide in NZ is highest among the Maori. I suspect you are right that poverty and correlates of poverty play a big role.
Yes, but I have noticed that there was a very small decrease in the last 5 years or so. A time in which play based learning gained popularity due to an educator named Nathan Wallis & thanks to neuroscience findings. Our new government is returning to an academic & assessment heavy approach in schools & I’m scared for our youth. I’m always grateful for but as you say - sobered by your research & sharing of it.
Creating want in humans became our undoing as a species in terms of disconnecting most of us from playful work.
Whilst we once worked primarily to meet need (and therefore there was lots of room for playfulness), creating want meant people became accustomed to chasing an endless wish list they thought would make them happy. Once we as a species were on that treadmill, how could we ever get back?
How do we, now?
The freedoms promised by technology will never in my opinion, come to fruition because it goes against economic interest to get us off that very profitable treadmill.
I would say, let’s be careful with the vision of hunter-gatherer life, because it’s difficult to know exactly what that life was like. Visions can be misleading, whether they be nostalgic visions of the past or overly optimistic visions of progress.
To what extent might nostalgia for our hunter-gatherer past mislead us into shunning productive work? How closely have any of us experienced our hunter-gatherer past in any real sense, other than to imagine it?
I will attest to the physical discomfort of once spending three soggy, cold days, deep in the mountains; mostly stuck in cramped tents with other college students; not able to light more than a flameless, smoldering fire using damp branches and twigs; unable to cook our food, or keep warm outside of our sleeping bags. When the tent leaks, life is miserable. Those three days ingrained in me the importance of living in a modern house, with thick mattresses, soft comforters, warm showers, clean dry towels, indoor toilets, and convenient push-button cooking appliances.
Hunter-gatherers are poor by modern standards. They slept under porous, animal-hide-wooden-pole structures among bears, wolves, mosquitoes, venomous snakes, and under threat from raiding tribes. Solid walls and modern roofs are worth some heavy toil. That TV show Naked and Afraid is another vision of hunter-gatherer life; probably not very accurate, but it does contain some reality.
Has the hunter-gatherer way of life been destroyed by force, disease, and persecution? Yes, but not just by these means. It has also been destroyed out of choice —too few people want to be hunter-gatherers.
Still there is a pull toward the hunter-gatherer way of life at least superficially. This is the way of nostalgia. Consider these attractions at Disneyland - Main Street, Frontierland, and New Orleans Square. These capitalize on our nostalgia - a sentiment to which everyone responds to some degree. The reality is different in a multitude of ways. Main Street and New Orleans were not equal for all. Frontierland involved the conquering of native tribes.
Still, we are the people that used to be hunter-gatherers, and we are somewhat still like them, in our human nature, in our desire to work and play, and in our vanity and materialism. Whatever is true and good for them might be true and good for us, so it’s worth considering the hunter-gatherer. But it may mislead us if we’re not careful.
With that said, how can I improve work? How can I make it more playful? These are of course not luxuries for everyone, but for some of us, we might note the following which Peter has given us.
- Playful work often occurs when there isn’t too much work
- Playful work often occurs when a person chooses when, how and whether to work
- Playful work often occurs in social context with friends
- Playful work is often varied and challenging
I would suggest that these observations stand on their own without support from a hunter-gatherer narrative, but they might benefit from a good narrative more than I realize.
Most people face very difficult tradeoffs. For example, “How can I obtain a house with all the conveniences, comforts and amenities that I want without so much toil?” and “How shall I educate my children and still earn enough to provide us with healthy food and a comfortable house?”
Do hunter-gatherers have good answers to these questions? How about economists?
It’s true, economists can do better. Hunter-gathers? Not much hope for bringing them back.
Scott, thank for these thoughts. Of course I'm not suggesting we can or should go back to a hunter-gatherer life. That would be impossible for most because we have too dense a population for that. However, I can provide quotes from hunter-gatherers who resisted government attempts to get them to take up farming, because farming is toil. I also know of anthropologists who hated to leave the hunter-gatherer band they were living with because of the friendships and playfulness. And, of course, hunter-gatherers knew a lot more about how to live outdoors and protect themselves from the elements than did you and your college friends on your 3-day camping trip!
I do take a small exception to the statement "Hunter-gatherers were affluent not because they had so much, but because they wanted so little."
In the time of hunter-gatherers, the world was much more bountiful. Enormous herds of deer, elk, buffalo, etc, which have been mostly wiped out now. The seas teeming with fish, now mostly gone. And millions of humans on earth instead of billions. I'm not saying it was a paradise, but the people weren't necessarily ascetics either.
The transition from Hunter-gatherer to full time farmer often concealed the fact that at least for some populations there was work done to encourage desirable plants to grow in specific locations so that when the wandering population returned to that area they would find particular plants ready to harvest.
The transition from just hunting and gathering to agriculture was no doubt a gradual one. and the question of when agricultural work would begin to take on the nature of toil is an interesting one. My guess is that fostering the growth of naturally growing plants would not have been considered toil. Of course many of us today (including me) raise vegetable gardens and consider it not just to be a source of good food but also play.
Loved this letter! It somehow left me with a great longing (perhaps to be part of something we have lost as a modern society). I do wonder: if the hunter gatherer’s notion of work was so different than ours, what’s their relation to conflict?
Well-said
This describes several of the reasons why homemaking has been my favorite job so far, better than the previous decade in the paid workforce.
The main lacking aspect is sociability. I would dearly love to do more chores alongside peers.
The other difference is that I do actually have far too much work to do, at least with two young kids and another in the process.
But the rest of it? Spot on.
I'm sure you're familiar with Daniel Pink's work. He argues in his books that what makes work intrinsically rewarding are mastery, autonomy and purpose--very similar to the what makes the "work" of hunter-gatherers so much different than what we refer to as "work" under Fordism or postindustrial capitalism.
It's also worth noting that hunter-gatherers don't have clocks or deadlines, and the contribution of their work to their collective survival and well-being is readily apparent, unlike our own alienated labor. Even today, jobs that involve helping people directly are very much desired. As David Graeber noted, there's a sense that if work is inherently rewarding, then it's okay for the people who do that work to be poorly compensated. He also famously documented the large number of jobs in our society that even the people who did them felt shouldn't exist ("Bullshit Jobs").
It's a cruel logic that purposeful work is an incentive that can be used cynically as compensation en lieu of pay. This isn't always the case e.g. surgeons are paid well, but it holds across many vocations and professions.
Graber's theory of bullshit jobs is well intentioned but underdeveloped. I've been a personal assistant, for example, and it wasn't purposeful work but it was very useful for the person I was assisting. I suppose we could automate away attendants and concierges, but humans are preferable in most positions to an answering machine, even a shiny one from Silicon Valley. What you're paying for isn't necessarily humans doing routine tasks, it's human capacity for problem solving when the routine task is disrupted by a novel situation which can be managed at their level.
“In theory, at least, the toil today can be done by machines and we should be free to do the creative, social, joyful tasks.”
I have an inkling that some of the reason this is not happening is that society and our educational system dampens the ability for children to develop their social skills fully, too many are developing and relying on artificial social relationships online and our sense of community has declined. I am eager to see what you have to say!
Love this article! I am curious if you have thoughts about human social status, and especially how that ties into the theme of play? Reading this letter I kept thinking of status, especially of the man who hunted 80% of the meat. My guess would be that, although all physical resources were shared equally, he was held in higher esteem by his tribe mates than the men who did not hunt... although perhaps those men had other ways to gain status, and that was part of why they did not feel the need to hunt! Humans have such deep instincts for status and in my opinion, sorting through these types of situations is one of the biggest reasons why.
I think it is also related to Robin Hanson's forager vs farmer ethics if you are familiar with that theory. Hunter gatherers are very strict about prohibiting dominance (one form of social status) between people, but rely heavily on prestige (another form of status) to regulate relationships among the group. It also ties in to your feeling that we are now emerging from a period of non-play/dominance based society into one more about play/prestige. Would love to hear your thoughts on the status angle or any of these specifics!
This is so fascinating and makes a lot of sense. Thank you for your work!
Excellent points and analyses, Peter. Thank you for writing this. I was very much looking forward to it after reading your last letter, and I am now very much looking forward to your next one.
I met with someone recently for a "philosophical inquiry" session about some deep uncertainties I'm experiencing re: (1) my job with an organization focused on highlighting progress in the world and (2) my growing skepticism that such a thing as absolute progress exists or is wise to pursue or cheer.
As I see it, what we call progress is really just a long string of changes and trade-offs, where some things get better (when viewed through a narrow lens) while other things get worse and/or new problems arise that require more progress—and on and on it goes. E.g., we make advancements that reduce the prevalence of infectious diseases but introduce and increase the prevalence of chronic diseases; we increase life expectancy but in doing so become more atomized and decrease wellbeing; or to borrow from your letters, we improve, in theory, work conditions while also making work more parts toil than play; or we grow the economy and bring more people into it while at the same time making it essential for many to commit to lives of toil and productivity.
I'm hopeful that tech advancements *could*—in theory—do the toil and leave us "free to do the creative, social, joyful tasks," as you mentioned. But I will admit that I'm skeptical, in the same way that I think people were right to be skeptical that social media would make us more connected.
I hope I'm proven wrong, and I'm doing my best to stay open to that possibility.
In any case, I look forward to reading your thoughts on the matter.
Humans have a built-in calibration process that adjusts our subjective baseline for what constitutes good living i.e. the hedonic treadmill. The things that make us happy are not necessarily the things that feel good in the moment.
That's for sure re: happiness. From an evolutionary perspective, I'm not even convinced that happiness is what we want. Even if it is, there's certainly no stability to be found there. Nothing that makes us happy will go on making us happy for very long or without interruption.
Add to this your point about the hedonic treadmill. Then sprinkle in some concept creep (https://dtg.sites.fas.harvard.edu/LEVARI2018COMPLETE.pdf), particularly of the kind in which social problems "seem intractable in part because reductions in their prevalence lead people to see more of them," and my doubts about progress and its pursuit only grow.
Hi Peter, I’m a play based educator. I’m based in NZ & am fascinated around your research around suicide & academic pressure. We have the highest youth suicide rates of any developed country due perhaps to childhood poverty & abuse, play is still common on our beaches & streets and our academic system doesn’t seem too pressured. What are your thoughts on our immense issue with youth suicide?
Sonia, this is a very interesting (and sobering) question. I know little about NZ, but I just looked up the suicide data for 15-19-year-olds on the New Zealand Health Ministry date site. clearly the dynamics of youth suicide are different in NZ than in the US. In NZ youth suicide held quite steady from the years 2009 to 2022, a period in which suicides for this age group were sharply increasing in the US. I also see data indicating that for all age groups suicide in NZ is highest among the Maori. I suspect you are right that poverty and correlates of poverty play a big role.
Sonya Simpson
3 mins ago
Yes, but I have noticed that there was a very small decrease in the last 5 years or so. A time in which play based learning gained popularity due to an educator named Nathan Wallis & thanks to neuroscience findings. Our new government is returning to an academic & assessment heavy approach in schools & I’m scared for our youth. I’m always grateful for but as you say - sobered by your research & sharing of it.
Great article as usual.
Lots of great points made.
Creating want in humans became our undoing as a species in terms of disconnecting most of us from playful work.
Whilst we once worked primarily to meet need (and therefore there was lots of room for playfulness), creating want meant people became accustomed to chasing an endless wish list they thought would make them happy. Once we as a species were on that treadmill, how could we ever get back?
How do we, now?
The freedoms promised by technology will never in my opinion, come to fruition because it goes against economic interest to get us off that very profitable treadmill.
I would say, let’s be careful with the vision of hunter-gatherer life, because it’s difficult to know exactly what that life was like. Visions can be misleading, whether they be nostalgic visions of the past or overly optimistic visions of progress.
To what extent might nostalgia for our hunter-gatherer past mislead us into shunning productive work? How closely have any of us experienced our hunter-gatherer past in any real sense, other than to imagine it?
I will attest to the physical discomfort of once spending three soggy, cold days, deep in the mountains; mostly stuck in cramped tents with other college students; not able to light more than a flameless, smoldering fire using damp branches and twigs; unable to cook our food, or keep warm outside of our sleeping bags. When the tent leaks, life is miserable. Those three days ingrained in me the importance of living in a modern house, with thick mattresses, soft comforters, warm showers, clean dry towels, indoor toilets, and convenient push-button cooking appliances.
Hunter-gatherers are poor by modern standards. They slept under porous, animal-hide-wooden-pole structures among bears, wolves, mosquitoes, venomous snakes, and under threat from raiding tribes. Solid walls and modern roofs are worth some heavy toil. That TV show Naked and Afraid is another vision of hunter-gatherer life; probably not very accurate, but it does contain some reality.
Has the hunter-gatherer way of life been destroyed by force, disease, and persecution? Yes, but not just by these means. It has also been destroyed out of choice —too few people want to be hunter-gatherers.
Still there is a pull toward the hunter-gatherer way of life at least superficially. This is the way of nostalgia. Consider these attractions at Disneyland - Main Street, Frontierland, and New Orleans Square. These capitalize on our nostalgia - a sentiment to which everyone responds to some degree. The reality is different in a multitude of ways. Main Street and New Orleans were not equal for all. Frontierland involved the conquering of native tribes.
Still, we are the people that used to be hunter-gatherers, and we are somewhat still like them, in our human nature, in our desire to work and play, and in our vanity and materialism. Whatever is true and good for them might be true and good for us, so it’s worth considering the hunter-gatherer. But it may mislead us if we’re not careful.
With that said, how can I improve work? How can I make it more playful? These are of course not luxuries for everyone, but for some of us, we might note the following which Peter has given us.
- Playful work often occurs when there isn’t too much work
- Playful work often occurs when a person chooses when, how and whether to work
- Playful work often occurs in social context with friends
- Playful work is often varied and challenging
I would suggest that these observations stand on their own without support from a hunter-gatherer narrative, but they might benefit from a good narrative more than I realize.
Most people face very difficult tradeoffs. For example, “How can I obtain a house with all the conveniences, comforts and amenities that I want without so much toil?” and “How shall I educate my children and still earn enough to provide us with healthy food and a comfortable house?”
Do hunter-gatherers have good answers to these questions? How about economists?
It’s true, economists can do better. Hunter-gathers? Not much hope for bringing them back.
Scott, thank for these thoughts. Of course I'm not suggesting we can or should go back to a hunter-gatherer life. That would be impossible for most because we have too dense a population for that. However, I can provide quotes from hunter-gatherers who resisted government attempts to get them to take up farming, because farming is toil. I also know of anthropologists who hated to leave the hunter-gatherer band they were living with because of the friendships and playfulness. And, of course, hunter-gatherers knew a lot more about how to live outdoors and protect themselves from the elements than did you and your college friends on your 3-day camping trip!
Love the article, thanks!
I do take a small exception to the statement "Hunter-gatherers were affluent not because they had so much, but because they wanted so little."
In the time of hunter-gatherers, the world was much more bountiful. Enormous herds of deer, elk, buffalo, etc, which have been mostly wiped out now. The seas teeming with fish, now mostly gone. And millions of humans on earth instead of billions. I'm not saying it was a paradise, but the people weren't necessarily ascetics either.
The transition from Hunter-gatherer to full time farmer often concealed the fact that at least for some populations there was work done to encourage desirable plants to grow in specific locations so that when the wandering population returned to that area they would find particular plants ready to harvest.
The transition from just hunting and gathering to agriculture was no doubt a gradual one. and the question of when agricultural work would begin to take on the nature of toil is an interesting one. My guess is that fostering the growth of naturally growing plants would not have been considered toil. Of course many of us today (including me) raise vegetable gardens and consider it not just to be a source of good food but also play.
Loved this letter! It somehow left me with a great longing (perhaps to be part of something we have lost as a modern society). I do wonder: if the hunter gatherer’s notion of work was so different than ours, what’s their relation to conflict?
Julia, I pan to write a letter fairly soon on hunter-gatherers' playful ways of resolving conflict.