She's an anthropologist, she's referencing what was normal during much of human history/prehistory.

Its worth pointing out it wasn't always this way, its not inevitable. Its all optional. We designed these social structures with our brains.

Appeal to nature is not a valid argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

The post appears to be an overall response to the idea that modern society as we know it is "just how it is." The point isn't "be like our ancient ancestors" so much as "the system we have now isn't the only way things can be." That is, we've all grown up in this society with the work grind as our default. Some people will defend the way things are on the basis of it being some aspect of "human nature" to always compete and work hard, but societies of the past survived through co-operation and sharing resources. It's pretty much the opposite to what is expected today.

What's a valid argument in favor of today's system? Wouldn't that be a recency bias?

I understand that "normal" is a confusing term by nature and isn't the same as "natural". The norm is pretty much what we can observe (plus bias), which might be natural or not (plus bias).

Here, i suppose it's just a shortest way of saying "I think it doesn't have to be this way".

And yet we never designed a leisure society with all the resources we have.