The energetics of uniquely human subsistence strategies

Humans afford the high energetic costs of life not through energy-saving adaptations—such as bipedalism or sophisticated tool use—but by acquiring energy at a far greater rate than our closest evolutionary great ape cousins, a new Science study finds. https://t.co/e8XaSZHoCw pic.twitter.com/x39ESl3Vfm

— Science Magazine (@ScienceMagazine) December 29, 2021

From the linked article, The energetics of uniquely human subsistence strategies:

Efficiency leads to leisure

Humans are animals—merely another lineage of great apes. However, we have diverged in significant ways from our ape cousins and we are perennially interested in how this happened. Kraft et al. looked at energy intake and expenditure in modern hunter-gatherer societies and great apes. They found that we do not spend less energy while foraging or farming, but we do acquire more energy and at a faster rate than our ape cousins. This difference may have allowed our ancestors to spend more time in contexts that facilitated social learning and cultural development. —SNV

Structured Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Relative to other great apes, humans have large brains, long life spans, higher fertility and larger neonates, and protracted periods of childhood dependency and development. Although these traits constitute the unique human life history that underlies the ecological success of our species, they also require human adults to meet extraordinarily high energetic demands. Determining how human subsistence strategies have met such extreme energy needs, given time and energy expenditure constraints, is thus key to understanding the origins of derived human traits.

RATIONALE

Two major transitions in hominin subsistence strategies are thought to have elevated energy capture: (i) the development of hunting and gathering ~2.5 million years ago, which coincided with brain enlargement and extended postnatal growth, and (ii) the rise of agriculture ~12,000 years ago, which was accompanied by substantial increases in fertility and population densities. These transitions are associated with the exploitation of novel food sources, but it is not clear how the energy and time budgets of early human foragers and farmers shifted to accommodate expensive traits. Some evolutionary reconstructions contend that economical locomotion, cooperation, the use of sophisticated tools, and eventually agriculture increased energy efficiency (i.e., energy gained versus energy spent), beyond that of other great apes. Alternatively, unique human subsistence strategies may reduce time and improve yield, increasing return rates (i.e., energy gained versus time spent).

To test these ideas, we compared subsistence costs (energy and time) and energy acquisition among wild orangutans, gorillas, and chimpanzees with high-resolution data on total energy expenditure, food acquisition, and time allocation, collected among Tanzanian hunter-gatherers (Hadza) and Bolivian forager-horticulturalists (Tsimane). Both populations actively forage (hunt, gather), whereas the Tsimane also practice slash-and-burn horticulture, which permits exploration of further changes in the energetics of subsistence associated with farming. We also assembled a global subsistence energetics database of contemporary hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists.

RESULTS

Relative to other great apes, human hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists spend more energy daily on subsistence, and they achieve similar energy efficiencies despite having more economical locomotion and using sophisticated technologies. In contrast, humans attain much greater return rates, spending less time on subsistence while acquiring more energy per hour. Further, horticulture is associated with higher return rates than hunting and gathering, despite minimal differences in the amount of time devoted to subsistence. Findings from our detailed study of the Hadza and Tsimane were consistent with those from the larger cross-cultural database of subsistence-level societies. Together, these results support prior evidence that the adoption of farming could have been motivated by greater gains per time spent working, and refute the notion that farming lifestyles are necessarily associated with increased labor time.

CONCLUSION

These findings revise our understanding of human energetics and evolution, indicating that humans afford expanded energy budgets primarily by increasing rates of energy acquisition, and not through energy-saving adaptations (such as economical bipedalism or sophisticated tool use) that decrease overall costs. Relative to other great apes, human subsistence strategies are characterized by high-intensity, high-cost extractive activities and expanded day ranges that provide more calories in less time. These results suggest that energy gained from improvements in efficiency throughout human evolution were primarily channeled toward further increasing foraging intensity rather than reducing the energetic costs of subsistence. Greater energetic gains per unit time are the reward for humans’ intense and behaviorally sophisticated subsistence strategies. Humans’ high-cost but high-return strategy is ecologically risky, and we argue that it was only possible in the context of increased cooperation, intergenerational food sharing, and a division of labor. We contend that the time saved by human subsistence strategies provided more leisure time for social interaction and social learning in central-place locations, which is critical for cumulative cultural evolution.