some what yes and some what no i say. its all about what u take in

Not really. Things are just easier now.

People is getting even more lazy

We aren't dumber but we're certainly lazier than they were. They couldn't sit in their cave all day watching Ellen on tv and get a free cell phone from their government.

It depends what you mean by dumb? Is it dumb that we've exploit internet and electronics? And the hardest part is to determine which one is dumber than another? Was Einstein or Descarters more clever than me -most of you might say yes. But you would have to determine -in which way were they more clever than I? So in which way our ancestors were more clever that us and which way were they dumber?

This question would be even harder to answer. I suppose this question is about how you view your idea of being clever or dumb. Some might think that making stone knives, is being clever -some might think that making knives from silver is more clever. Some might even say that being dumb is being clever -which is hard to understand if you can't decide your idea of being clever or dumb.

Einstein wouldn't have lasted 5 seconds in the stone age. He would be perfectly able to tell you how to live, but probably unable to carry out the day to day chores required to do so.

Back when growing a potato was life or death, you bet yer rear we knew all the warning signs that something might not go right.

Well the original poster mentioned "hunter-gathering" period, so I'm assuming in the Stone Age or before that even.
And there is clear evidence that we've developed more intellectually, from mathematics to physics.

But animals rights have only existed for a century or so... nowadays people get criticised if they wear fur, whereas in the hunting-gathering period, people wouldn't think twice before skinning a wolf.
You might contest that maybe it's because of the thinking of that period, but that is just evidence that people back then did not have the level of empathy that modern humans have now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you kidding? It's not about them having empathy, it was for survival.

Do you honestly think the "hunting-gathering period" people wore animal skin for fashion? It was for warmth to survive the cold.
Would you rather they ate the animal and discarded everything else? Or rather not eat the animal at all.

Feel moral while starving and freezing or ensure your family was feed and kept warm through the winter...

I guess all I'm saying is, it's a good thing our ancestors were concerned with fashion.

EDIT: For whatever reason, the quote isn't working for the last comment that. So I'm separating our comments with ------

No. Of course not.