Fine. And whatever device you're using to post here just happened to emerge spontaneously from the dirt, instead of being built by the efforts of thousands of people spread all over the world as part of a modern technological society.

Also: where do you get your food? Do you grow it? Or hunt for it in a natural wilderness, untouched by technology, using tools you made yourself, without the benefit of modern technology?

Where do you get your clothes? Do you make them yourself? Out of natural materials that would be there if our modern, technological society did not exist?

I'm going to make a wild guess that the answers to those questions are "no"--that you are relying on sources of food and clothes that also require a modern technological society. Not to mention transportation and whatever else you need to do the things that occupy your day.

So no, you are not living a hunter-gatherer subsistence life. You are taking advantage of the fact that it is possible in a modern technological society to be a homeless bum living under a bridge, without having to do all the things that actual hunter-gatherers living a subsistence life have had to do all through human history to survive.

How is someone living a hunter-gatherer subsistence life going to get Internet access? That requires a technological society, which requires a lot of wealth creation way above a subsistence level.

If you're saying that someone might claim they're living a hunter-gatherer subsistence life except when they're not, well, that's just hypocrisy. If you're going to make use of things that require a modern technological society, then you're saying life in a modern technological society is preferable to a hunter-gatherer subsistence life, whether you like it or not. You can't have it both ways.

> even if you escape the sedentary village, the stable neighbouring village will happily return you to "your owner" so that he would hopefully return the favor if ever he catches one of "their slaves")

Tell that to all the people who ran the Underground Railroad in the pre-Civil War US, not to mention all the other ways that Fugitive Slave laws were persistently violated.

I think you are vastly underestimating the benefits of a modern "sedentary" society. But as I pointed out in my other post, if you really don't think they're benefits, then you can simply forgo them. Go and live an off grid subsistence lifestyle. There are people who do that. But of course they don't post on the Internet.

If you think a subsistence nomadic lifestyle is preferable to a modern "sedentary" one, then how are you able to post here? Subsistence nomads don't have Internet access (to name just one of umpteen things we "sedentary" moderns have access to that they don't). There are ways to live off grid if you really think it's preferable.

> I also don't think poverty is a complex problem, but that's a minor point.

I'm not sure it's a minor point. I don't think poverty is a "complex" problem either, as that term is used in the article, but that doesn't mean I think it fits into one of the other two categories in the article. I think it is in a fourth category that the article doesn't even consider.

For lack of a better term, I'll call that category "political". The key thing with this category of problems is that they are about fundamental conflicts of interest and values, and that's a different kind of problem from the kind the article talks about. We don't have poverty in the world because we lack accurate enough knowledge of how to create the wealth that brings people out of poverty. We have poverty in the world because there are people in positions of power all over the world who literally don't care about ending poverty, and who subvert attempts to do so--who make a living by stealing wealth instead of creating it, and don't care that that means making lots of other people poor.