Skip to main content

Sapiens? Happier in houses or in animal hides?


In his recent tome Sapiens Yuval Noah Hariri has delivered a forceful and fascinating case for humanity's main exception as denizens of the animal kingdom being our ability to share in things that are imaginary. Examples include mathematics, governments, states, corporations, gods, social castes, and money.

Further examples the praxeologist could add society as an aggregate concept*.

Hariri employs the concept of the inter-subjective to explain how people, not just one person, accept these fictions over time and then employ them in day-to-day life. Inter-subjective means exactly what it sounds like, the meeting of one human-being's subjective reference frame with the equally subjective reference frame of another human-being. In other words it's the phenom that is studied by sociologists - or at least real ones.

When ideas can spread amongst people the incentive to increase linguistic articulacy increases and before long we have deities, shared cultural norms, dispute resolution and large-scale - compared to what other homo species can manage - organisation, for example in planning and making farms, cities and war.

Hariri posits that this may be why Homo Sapiens tribes defeated Homo Neanderthalensis bands and conquered the Middle East and Europe wholesale. The inter-subjective society of the neanderthals was simply too primitive to organise grand strategies

However, Hariri himself writes for the Guardian asking whether we were happier in the stone age. Of course the flippant answer would be that none of us lived then, we live now. In all seriousness, however, we have - according to new research published in Nature - changed inside in response to creating private property, farming, fishing, forestry and urbanity.

Science Alert informs me that people's skin colour, eye colour and height changed dramatically in response to the adoption of agriculture

Strictly speaking the paper does not dissent from Hariri's reading of history. I am bringing it up to make clear that increasingly there is evidence that our constitutions have adapted to our sedentary new lives, and that in fact to assume away improvements in well-being is grossly disingenuous, nd amounts to the beginnings of eco-socialism through the back door.

I don't know if Hariri considers himself an eco-socialist but his analysis in that Guardian article arouses my suspicions since the Guardianistas and Independantes are known to be biased toward eco-socialism. All this 'you could be better off with less' rhetoric is all very well but unless somebody actually decides that they are, who am I to impose consumption-puritanism?

* I have no truck with the use of the term society to refer to 'a society' when talking about all of the people in a given space and time, but it must be remembered that it's only social (inter-subjective) bonds between real individual human-beings that have any objective reality, not the aggregate of a people.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …