Good question, Steven. While I wish blogs had more space for elaboration, the referenced Spencer Wells book notes how skeletal analysis of pre and post ag humans show people got shorter, sicker, and died sooner with longevity not recovering for 7000 to 9000 years for men and women respectively after the ag-revolution (i.e., by the late 19th century with public heathcare). Harari's book further elaborates this. In James Suzman's book WORK and AFFLUENCE WITHOUT ABUNDANCE (he's referenced but not his books), a study of hunter-gatherers (Native Americans and Aboriginals from about 1700 on), and those who have dwindled off to near zero in modern times, show the food acquisition effort took an average of about 17 hours per week. With so few humans, no deforestation, no biodiversity depletion of farming, and constantly on the move, food security was high. There were still occasional skirmishes between tribes and even a rare murder within tribes, usually to put down what these folks term "upstarts," as a means of crowd control - a wannabe alpha male. Though the crowds were, according to Richard Leakey some 25 people or less. There were, or course, no wars because even the concept of held assets didn't exist and state ambitions wouldn't rise until the Sumerians invented city states ca. 3300 B.C. Property and ownership would not be conceived until ag came along. Hobbes' notion of "nasty, brutish, and short" appears to have been quite the opposite.

Thanks again for your comment.