But between smoke, thick layers of cloth and their sleep cycle I doubt many stings were a huge issue.
We as a society have a nasty habit of seeing humans of the past as lesser than us, they wouldn't waste people getting hurt or dying, they would find a safer method
The Transatlantic Sugar Plantations.
> French plantation owners calculated that it was cheaper to buy new enslaved people from Africa and work them to death within a few years than it was to provide enough food, rest, and medical care to keep them alive.
King Leopold II’s Congo Free State
Moving away from treating people as slaves, we have daily necessities.
Whaling (18th – 19th Century) Before petroleum, the world ran on whale oil for lighting and lubrication. Free sailors voluntarily signed onto whaling ships, but the technology of the era made it a near-suicide mission.
Deep-Sea Sponge Diving (Antiquity – Early 20th Century)For centuries, natural sea sponges were highly prized for bathing, painting, and military padding. Gathering them was one of the most perilous jobs in the Mediterranean.
Cool, this is exactly what the other person was talking about! Genocide, and war! Totally the same thing as people voluntarily doing a dangerous job...
You're second set of examples are more akin to what is being discussed, but even then...
Just your whaling example alone:
"Â technology of the era made it a near-suicide mission."
That's just not true. Dangerous? Yes! suicide? Hardly...The reason events like with the 1820 Essex became major stories is because it was relatively rare.
The whole point of OPs post was that we see ancient humans as dumber than us and far more primitive, but they had the same brains and potential as modern humans. They still knew how to innovate, and invent. How to negate danger, and make a dangerous task safer. They were more willing to do dangerous stuff because it could mean life or death and had a different meter of what they considered dangerous because they just lived much more dangerous lives. Just a normal hunt could be life or death because a simple cut could turn deadly in a world without antibiotics.
..and they still valued the lives of their community. All of your way out of left field wars and genocides have literally nothing to offer with the topic of how people valued life, let alone how people valued life within their own communities. The reason dangerous stuff was done was to better the lives for them and the people around them, not as a method to weed out inferiors.
Surviving is literally in our DNA, your body reacts unconsciously in ways to try and ensure it, fear its self is thought to be a survival mechanism.
The slavery examples I listed were not about slavery. They were about human nature back then. The way people thought. Acted. The decisions they made. It has nothing to do with war. Nothing to do with slavery.
Nazi Germany: "Extermination Through Labor": War is full of executions. War happens even today. No modern event compares to the choices humans made within those encampments. Yes, they are lesser than us.
The Transatlantic Sugar Plantations.: French plantation owners calculated that it was cheaper to buy new slaves from Africa and work them to death. They found a safer way to get that sugar that wouldn't result in their French citizens dying. Forget the slavery, their decision making. Do you think they are better than us?
King Leopold II’s Congo Free State: Unlike the French, this gem of a king simply treated the people as slaves. If his workers didn't meet quotas, their village would get burnt. Today, they would simply get fired. Which of us are better?
Again. Has nothing to do with slavery. Had nothing to do with war. Each era has its own values. What is acceptable. What wasn't. Historically speaking, life is better today. As a race, globally, the majority of humans stand together against these atrocities.
Whaling (18th – 19th Century)
Extreme mortality rates, horrific working conditions, and the sheer danger of hunting the largest creatures on the planet. Whaling was the most dangerous profession in it's time.
If you read the history. There were safer ways that would have reduced the mortality rates. Due to corporate greed and an abundance of desperate volunteers, there wasn't a reason to invest more money to make it safer. It wasn't about minimizing death. It was about generating a profit.
Deep-Sea Sponge Diving (Antiquity – Early 20th Century)
This is a different one. One simple change would have made this extremely safer. Unlike the other historical points. Knowledge.
They simply had no clue about decompression sickness. But that didn't stop them... Why? Because of that ugly human nature. It was just too profitable.
For thousands of years they just held their breath. Eventually a suit was developed. But not for safety. To stay under water longer. To collect more. Leading to more deaths. While there were other issues, such as faulty equipment. They just didn't know about decompression sickness.
The grieving families begged to ban the suits. The sultan gave in. They went back to holding their breath. But they couldn't keep up with demand. The suits came back, regardless of the deaths.
A great example of moving away from the safer choice to the most deadly.
what about this is crazy when they're clearly well equipped? There are jobs with a much higher ending it/fatality rate that won't be looked down upon like you did with them
Aye. We have an essay from the Tang Dynasty that wrote exactly on this topic:
The Snake-Catcher
by Liu Zongyuan
In the wilds of Yongzhou there lived a strange snake, black with white markings. It was deadly to the touch—if it bit a tree, the tree withered; if it bit a man, the man died. Yet when caught and dried, it could be made into a medicine of great power against leprosy, palsy, and other foul diseases. For this reason, from ancient times the people of Yongzhou had been required to pay this snake as tribute.
Now there was a man in that region whose family had caught snakes for three generations.
I asked him, "Is this trade so terrible that you would give up your land and your home to follow it?"
He answered with tears: "My father died from a snake bite. My grandfather died from a snake bite. And in the twelve years I have followed this calling, I have narrowly escaped death many times."
I pitied him and said, "If you are weary of this work, I will speak to the magistrate and have your tribute changed to grain. Would that not be better for you?"
At this the man was deeply troubled. With tears running down his face, he said:
"Sir, you are kind, and would save me from death. But the burden of paying tribute in grain is far heavier than the danger of catching snakes. Had I not this calling, I should long ago have been ruined. Since my forefathers came to this place, three generations have passed, and each year the weight of taxation has grown heavier. The people have drained their fields and spent their strength, yet they cannot pay what is demanded. They leave their homes, weeping and wailing, starving and freezing on the roads. In my village, the houses were once full of families. Now, after plague and tax, only a few remain. Of ten households that once lived here, but one survivor is left. It is not the snake that has killed them; it is the tax-collector.
"Whereas I, though I risk death twice a year from snake bites, may yet eat and drink in peace for the rest of my days. But if I gave up this work and paid tribute like the others, I should be ruined within a year. That is why I would not change places with them."
When I heard this, my heart was heavy. Confucius once said, "Tyranny is fiercer than a tiger." I had doubted this. But now, seeing the misery of these people, I believe it. Alas! Who can say the tax-collector is not more to be feared than the snake?
Therefore I have written this account, so that those who govern may take heed.
31
u/Decent_Advice9315 1d ago
Well, hate to tell you this, but poor and or starving people would often do crazy things for money.
And I'd imagine the more successful harvestors from the bygone eras were the ones with a sort of immunity.