[dragonwriter]

> hunter-gatherers are/were satisfied with what they could get.

If that were true, hunter-gatherers wouldn't have developed agriculture and/or husbandry as ways to get more, leading to civilization, leading to a state where, for the vast majority of the planet, knowing about hunter-gatherer society was something that came through anthropological studies rather than life experience.

[Scarfleece]

Same irrational presumption as the other guy, see my response.

I would also like to point out that studies show early agricultural societies had notably worse health than hunter-gatherers. This would make it unlikely that a successful, happy tribe would adopt agriculture just so they could "get more".

[dragonwriter]

> I would also like to point out that studies show early agricultural societies had notably worse health than hunter-gatherers. This would make it unlikely that a successful, happy tribe would adopt agriculture just so they could "get more".

So did early industrial societies compared to previous societies. In both cases, however, there were individuals who benefited immensely and got more; its the individual desire to get more, that is relevant in this discussion.

(Anyhow, the negative health impacts of the change would not have been obvious in advance, so would not have played a role in whether the motive to get more would have advocated in favor of driving adoption of the techniques.)