very good post! some things I'd enjoy reading in your future posts:
-your thoughts on Against the Grain
-I've heard that according to DNA analysis, polygyny only really took off once we got agriculture and city states, and reproductive success was comparatively more equal in a pre-Malthusian world. I've not tracked down the papers so I'd be curious to see whether it's true
Interesting and convincing. I too was shocked and repelled by the abuse heaped on Chagnon for reporting findings that his academic colleagues disliked when I read his book ten or so years ago. I only read Demonic Males last summer and was struck by how is confirmed and complemented Chagnon. Your posts add valuable further insights.
This is interesting - the theory that some degree of narcissism/psychopathy/etc may be beneficial for society has been bounced around quite a bit. The idea that some people are so removed from social contracts that they propel society forward through their sociopathy is fun and plausible.
On the simultaneous development of agriculture "coincidence":
~12,000 years ago is when we left the ice ages and entered into a stable climate. We have had an incredibly volatile climate over the last 100,000 years thanks to many cycles of advancing and retreating ice sheets. These caused consistent, global climate change.
Ice ages are generally bad times to grow, across the globe. As Wikipedia puts it:
"During the Last Glacial Maximum, much of the world was cold, dry, and inhospitable, with frequent storms and a dust-laden atmosphere. The dustiness of the atmosphere is a prominent feature in ice cores; dust levels were as much as 20 to 25 times greater than now.[15] This was probably due to a number of factors: reduced vegetation, stronger global winds, and less precipitation to clear dust from the atmosphere."
I think this actually helps your argument. There was significant migration out of Africa starting around 100,000 years ago. Not much happened in terms of developing civilization until 12,000 years ago, when all of a sudden climates EVERYWHERE became more stable, warmer, and wetter, and then boom, agriculture develops simultaneously in many locations.
"It would require very much of a coincidence if, after all those years of non-agriculture, humans in such different climates as the Levant, China, South America and New Guinea experienced the same environmental shocks within the same short time span." It's not environmental _shocks_ that is the idea. It's food surplus.
Nomadic hunter-gatherers are spending their whole lives finding food, not starving to death, not getting killed by hostile/poisonous flora and fauna, and getting along with their extended family members. And roaming. When the food runs out they have to go someplace else. But we have in the historical record evidence of non-nomadic hunter-gatherers. They had a food surplus, without inventing agriculture.
Off they go, developing better art, and improved housing, and pottery, and fairly rapidly they get trade networks and better boats and so on and so forth. Civilisation! Yay!
But you can imagine a world wide food surplus caused by milder weather for a series of generations, perhaps due to increased solar activity, or less interstellar dust -- a global climate trend. If these good times of surplus ended -- either because whatever it was that caused it reversed, or just because the population grew to the point that the natural bounty did not suffice -- it is easy to imagine people in different places all deciding to save seeds and then plant crops to increase the food supply.
If this isn't the explanation, then the simultaneous development is the coincidence that needs explaining.
very good post! some things I'd enjoy reading in your future posts:
-your thoughts on Against the Grain
-I've heard that according to DNA analysis, polygyny only really took off once we got agriculture and city states, and reproductive success was comparatively more equal in a pre-Malthusian world. I've not tracked down the papers so I'd be curious to see whether it's true
There are certainly good thoughts here, just the part "The male labor reserve" is not up to par. It should be fact-checked.
You might want to rewrite this fragment:
"...with the advent of firearms the feudal lords were forced to lower oppression of especially towns in order to create..."
Very good post.
Interesting and convincing. I too was shocked and repelled by the abuse heaped on Chagnon for reporting findings that his academic colleagues disliked when I read his book ten or so years ago. I only read Demonic Males last summer and was struck by how is confirmed and complemented Chagnon. Your posts add valuable further insights.
This is interesting - the theory that some degree of narcissism/psychopathy/etc may be beneficial for society has been bounced around quite a bit. The idea that some people are so removed from social contracts that they propel society forward through their sociopathy is fun and plausible.
My new favorite substack. History, evolution, game theory. Great work!
On the simultaneous development of agriculture "coincidence":
~12,000 years ago is when we left the ice ages and entered into a stable climate. We have had an incredibly volatile climate over the last 100,000 years thanks to many cycles of advancing and retreating ice sheets. These caused consistent, global climate change.
Ice ages are generally bad times to grow, across the globe. As Wikipedia puts it:
"During the Last Glacial Maximum, much of the world was cold, dry, and inhospitable, with frequent storms and a dust-laden atmosphere. The dustiness of the atmosphere is a prominent feature in ice cores; dust levels were as much as 20 to 25 times greater than now.[15] This was probably due to a number of factors: reduced vegetation, stronger global winds, and less precipitation to clear dust from the atmosphere."
The stability that began 12,000 years ago enabled the population densities, globally. This vox article has some good charts and quotes from climate scientists: https://www.vox.com/2015/12/12/9894234/climate-change-explained
I think this actually helps your argument. There was significant migration out of Africa starting around 100,000 years ago. Not much happened in terms of developing civilization until 12,000 years ago, when all of a sudden climates EVERYWHERE became more stable, warmer, and wetter, and then boom, agriculture develops simultaneously in many locations.
Perhaps violence is a good thing, then. If it leads to a stable population that doesn't stress the Earth too much.
"It would require very much of a coincidence if, after all those years of non-agriculture, humans in such different climates as the Levant, China, South America and New Guinea experienced the same environmental shocks within the same short time span." It's not environmental _shocks_ that is the idea. It's food surplus.
Nomadic hunter-gatherers are spending their whole lives finding food, not starving to death, not getting killed by hostile/poisonous flora and fauna, and getting along with their extended family members. And roaming. When the food runs out they have to go someplace else. But we have in the historical record evidence of non-nomadic hunter-gatherers. They had a food surplus, without inventing agriculture.
Off they go, developing better art, and improved housing, and pottery, and fairly rapidly they get trade networks and better boats and so on and so forth. Civilisation! Yay!
But you can imagine a world wide food surplus caused by milder weather for a series of generations, perhaps due to increased solar activity, or less interstellar dust -- a global climate trend. If these good times of surplus ended -- either because whatever it was that caused it reversed, or just because the population grew to the point that the natural bounty did not suffice -- it is easy to imagine people in different places all deciding to save seeds and then plant crops to increase the food supply.
If this isn't the explanation, then the simultaneous development is the coincidence that needs explaining.