The Original Affluent Society

What If Our Ancestors Were Richer Than We Think?

"The world's first affluent society was not ours."

That simple sentence, written by anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, challenges one of the most deeply held assumptions about human history.

We often imagine prehistoric hunter-gatherers as people living on the edge of starvation, constantly searching for food, struggling to survive, and eagerly embracing agriculture as soon as they discovered it. Civilization, in this view, was a great leap forward.

Sahlins argued something very different. In his famous essay, The Original Affluent Society, he suggested that many hunter-gatherer societies were not poor at all. In fact, by certain standards, they may have been wealthier than we are.

It is a provocative idea, but one that forces us to rethink what it means to be rich, poor, and successful. A rethink of our modern concept of living.

The Original Affluent Society

When we hear the word affluent, we usually think of large houses, expensive cars, and overflowing bank accounts. Sahlins asked us to consider another definition.

What if affluence simply means having enough?

According to anthropological studies, many hunter-gatherer groups worked surprisingly few hours compared to modern people. They often spent only three to five hours a day gathering food, hunting, and performing necessary tasks. The rest of their time could be devoted to socializing, storytelling, resting, making tools, or simply enjoying life.

This does not mean their lives were easy or free from danger. They faced illness, harsh weather, and uncertainty. However, many of these societies managed to satisfy their needs with relatively little labor.

Their secret was simple: They desired less.

Instead of endlessly accumulating possessions, they lived with modest material expectations and focused on meeting immediate needs. In Sahlins' view, this made them affluent.

The Two Paths to Wealth

One of Sahlins' most famous ideas is that there are two ways to become rich.

The Galbraithean Way

Named after economist John Kenneth Galbraith, this is the path followed by modern industrial societies. The formula is straightforward:

Increase production endlessly in order to satisfy endless desires. More goods. More services. More technology. More growth.

This system has generated incredible prosperity and innovation, but it also has a problem: human desires often expand faster than production. The more we have, the more we seem to want.

A bigger house leads to wanting an even bigger one. A new phone soon feels outdated. Success becomes a moving target.

The Zen Way

The second path is almost the opposite. Instead of increasing production indefinitely, reduce your wants. If your needs are modest and your basic necessities are met, you can experience abundance without accumulating enormous wealth.

This was, according to Sahlins, the logic of many hunter-gatherer societies. Their affluence came not from possessing everything, but from needing relatively little. It is a surprisingly modern lesson in an age of consumerism and constant comparison.

The Neolithic Trap

Perhaps Sahlins' most controversial argument concerns the agricultural revolution.

We are taught that agriculture was one of humanity's greatest achievements. It allowed people to settle down, build cities, and eventually create civilization.

Sahlins did not deny these achievements. But he asked an uncomfortable question: What did we give up in exchange?

Agriculture required longer hours of labor. Fields had to be planted, maintained, harvested, and protected. Surplus food created property, and property created inequality. Once people accumulated resources, differences in wealth and power began to emerge.

Settled life also brought new problems:

• Greater social hierarchies

• More organized warfare

• Increased vulnerability to famine when crops failed

• Greater exposure to infectious diseases due to dense populations

From this perspective, the Neolithic Revolution was not simply a story of progress. It was also a trade-off.

Humans gained civilization, but they may have lost leisure, equality, and a certain kind of freedom.

Some scholars even call this idea the Neolithic trap. The possibility that once agriculture began, humanity became locked into systems of increasing labor and complexity that were difficult to escape.

Poverty as a Human Creation

Another fascinating argument from Sahlins concerns poverty. We tend to think of poverty as a lack of material possessions. Sahlins disagreed. He argued that poverty is often a social condition. A relationship between people.

In hunter-gatherer societies, an individual may own very few possessions and yet not feel poor because everyone around them lives similarly and their needs are largely satisfied.

By contrast, a person in a wealthy modern society can feel poor despite having access to comforts unimaginable to ancient peoples because they are constantly comparing themselves to others.

In this sense, poverty is not merely about what we have.

It is also about how society defines success, status, and sufficiency.

This idea remains deeply relevant today, in a world shaped by social media, consumer culture, and growing economic inequality.

So, Were Hunter-Gatherers Better Off?

Sahlins was not arguing that we should abandon modern life and return to living in forests with spears and campfires. Rather, he wanted to challenge our assumptions. Progress is not always a straight line. More production does not automatically lead to greater happiness. And wealth is not simply the accumulation of possessions.

His work invites us to ask difficult questions:

• How much is enough?

• Are we working more than necessary?

• Have our desires outgrown our ability to enjoy what we already have?

• Could true abundance sometimes come from wanting less rather than earning more?

A Lesson for the Modern World

More than fifty years after it was published, The Original Affluent Society remains remarkably relevant.

We live in an age of extraordinary technological abundance, yet many people feel overworked, anxious, and permanently behind. Sahlins reminds us that perhaps the measure of a good life is not how much we can accumulate, but whether our needs and desires are in balance.

The world's first affluent society, he argued, may not have been the one with the most possessions. It may have been the one that understood something we are still trying to learn:

Enough can be the healthiest form of wealth.

Thanks for reading. This post is truly a special one. Abrazos.

Diego Rojas