¶ … Affluent Society," Marshall Sahlins shows that hunter-gatherer societies are by nature affluent because "all the people's material wants were easily satisfied." Their low standard of living, and correspondingly few material needs, implies that the basic necessities of hunter-gatherers are usually met. Sahlins contrasts the hunter-gatherer concept of affluence with the capitalist notion of wealth: "modern capitalist societies, however richly endowed, dedicate themselves to the proposition of scarcity." People in industrialized nations work long hours and hoard large amounts of material goods for the fear of future scarcity. Hunter-gatherers, on the other hand, feast when they have food and move on to more lush surroundings when food supplies grow scarce. Although the individuals living in hunter-gather societies have few possessions, they are not poor. Sahlins contrasts the meager but sufficient material possessions of the hunter-gatherer with the living...

By wanting less, hunter-gatherers have more of what they need and therefore are always affluent.
Moreover, hunter-gather societies survive on a philosophy of abundance, not of scarcity, which is why food is not gathered for storage but rather, for immediate consumption. Mobility necessitates few material possessions and in fact, material wealth is a hindrance to affluence within the hunter-gatherer society. Material goods are not in themselves signs of wealth, according to Sahlins, and that idea is a modern myth and misconception. In fact, for the nomad, material wealth is a burden and a hindrance to true affluence.

One of the salient features of Sahlins' article is its cultural relativism: poverty…