I almost gave up reading Foragers, Farmers and Fossil Fuels: How Human Values Evolve by Ian Morris because his whole thesis just seemed so anecdotal and far-fetched that I spent much of my reading time grumbling. But I kept going because after he makes his arguments, he has four other people, one of them Margaret Atwood, respond to his thesis. He then follows up the critiques with another chapter of his own in which he answers the criticism. I recently likened reading the book to a carrot and a stick with the book being a stick and Atwood at the end being the carrot to keep me going.
In the end I am glad I kept going and not just for Atwood. The book provides quite a lot of food for thought. Before it became a book though, it was a series of lectures, the Tanner Lectures delivered in 2012 and sponsored by Princeton University’s Center for Human Values. The criticism at the end is in response to the lectures. Morris did, of course, do some revising and expanding of the lectures in order to turn them into a book, but I don’t think it was much and believe most of it was in order to facilitate the change in genre from oral lecture to written book.
I don’t want to and can’t go into explicit detail of Morris’s theory, it is simply too complex. If my summary is either intriguing or infuriating enough, however, I recommend reading the book.
To the theory.
Morris argues that the core reason for changes in human values is the manner in which we capture energy. He measures energy in kilocalories which means his argument is very much based in how we get enough food and calories to sustain ourselves. And how we obtain these calories has a direct impact on our values. The main values Morris focuses on are violence, wealth and gender equality but he frequently points out that it is our entire values system he is talking about not just these few.
The book is broken up into three sections with each one centering around the means of energy capture the nicely alliterative title suggests. First we were foragers and hunters. These early societies were prone to violence while at the same time being rather egalitarian when it came to wealth and gender roles. Yes, women tended to be the gatherers and men the hunters, but both modes of obtaining food were just as important so neither gender had much power over the other. Since people moved around a lot, accumulating wealth in the form of property or possessions was not important. A lot of the time, people didn’t even have to work that hard in order to feed the group, not that it was an easy life, but it was not one in which people spent all day working. However, because the amount of energy that could be captured through foraging was limited, groups were small, settlements were few and far between, and large settlements approaching anything like a town were rare.
That is until people discovered farming. Farming required a big trade-off, a lot more work was needed but the amount of kilocalories skyrocketed. More food meant better health and longevity which meant people also reproduced more. Farming requires you stay in one place which meant villages and towns and cities. It also meant hierarchy became valuable. Wealth accumulation became possible. Violence meted out be individuals became discouraged and laws were written. Gender roles became more separated, more enforced, and women were relegated to the house and the kitchen. Because farming required huge labor inputs in order to obtain huge energy output, slavery and forced labor were considered acceptable. Human population exploded, cities expanded, empires were possible and a whole lot of other things too that people had never cared about before. Eventually, however, the energy available from farming hit a ceiling it could not expand past.
But then northern Europe discovered fossil fuels. It is the form of energy capture that has allowed the Earth’s population to grow past 7 billion. It is what has allowed us to have smartphones and computers and cars, cheap heating and cooling for our houses. Huge cities. It is what has allowed the United States to move from 90% of the labor force being farmers to just 2%. Morris argues that it is a major factor in our ability to end slavery worldwide, for the major drop in individual violence and, bloody as the twentieth century was, state violence. It is also the biggest factor in changes of gender equity and wealth equity.
But now we are coming to the end of fossil fuels, what is next? Morris doesn’t claim to know but he offers a few possibilities that range from complete societal collapse to a nearly utopian post-human future. Depending on what happens at the upcoming climate change talks in Paris, I’m hedging for something in between and hoping it is closer to the utopian side of things than the complete collapse option.
The criticisms of Morris’s arguments were interesting for the most part. Atwood looked ahead to the future and suggested if society does indeed collapse we will almost immediately return to a foraging set of values. As you would expect, her short piece was witty and thoughtful.
Another of the critics was a philosopher and I have no idea what she was going on about most of the time talking about real values and ideal values and what are values anyway? Another criticism came from a historian who disagreed with the way Morris approached history. And the fourth critique came from a classicist who accused Morris of operating from a capitalist bias that skewed everything and invalidated all.
At this point in my reading I was not as strongly against Morris’s argument as I was in the beginning but I still disagreed. After I read his thoughtful and well-argued rebuttal, I am wondering if maybe, just maybe, he is actually on to something. I am not sure what it is that swayed me, it might be that his writing style in the rebuttal had more personality while still being rigorously argued. It could be that in answering the criticism of the others, he made is thesis more rounded and clear. It is possible that since Atwood didn’t rip him to shreds or at least leave claw marks, I was more lenient on him.
Whatever the case, whether his argument is right or wrong I have no idea and I am not sure that it is something that can actually be proved one way or the other. What I can say is that Morris has worked out a well argued and thought provoking framework through which we can view the evolution of human values. And agree or disagree with him, the more frameworks we have for viewing and discussing these kinds of things, the better in my opinion. Because really, these frameworks are about telling the story of human development and one story does not tell us everything but it can tell us something.
Well it definitely sounds interesting. And it’s a confident individual who will put a book out with criticism against his own ideas inside it. I think.
LikeLike
Jeane, I was really impressed that he included criticism against his ideas in the book. That does say something!
LikeLike
Sounds like a rather provocative book, with many speculations and few if any tests. For years the pundits and scholars have said we were coming to the end of fossil fuels. To date, that has been proven false as more and more discoveries are being made and many alternative sources have been implemented. This will continue–fortunately–solar, wind power, electric vehicles, etc. Thank you for your review; I’ll read it again and look for other reviews.
LikeLike
Richard, quite provocative! Morris provides all sorts of data from archaeology and history and economics, etc but there is no real way to test his thesis. We are definitely coming to the end of fossil fuels, not that they will be all used up but that we have to stop burning them. Climate change requires that we stop. If we end up burning all the fossil fuels we can get our hands on, scientists estimates oceans will rise as much as 200 feet. Alternative sources of energy are possible but will we get there before it is too late? I’m afraid we won’t know for some time yet.
LikeLike
You know Stefanie…and I have not read the book, but bases what you shared, Morris’s theory is not very far fetched. Its weird but Hindu Religious book, like the Upnishads written some 3000 years ago, kind of developed a similar thesis….not the fossil fuel part but how food and in turn materials change value sets and how it may all turn out to be quiet disastrous in the end!
LikeLike
cirtnecce, that is really interesting! The Upnishads sound like a very wise and far-thinking book.
LikeLike
Great commentary on this book Stefanie.
This sounds very interesting. I tend to really like explorations on human history and how it relates to society, culture and values.
In my opinion human values have improved with society’s greater material wealth. Such material wealth is definitely related to energy and food production.Thus on some level I think that Morris is on to something.
With that it sounds like he takes his theories a lot further then this. I think that I would like to read this.
Have you read Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature? It covers somewhat similar ground as this book. I found it highly convincing and informative.
LikeLike
bookgirl, thanks! You just might like this book because Morris matches your opinion and then takes it further. I have not read the Pinker book, but I think I will have to investigate it for sure!
LikeLike
This sounds like an intriguing, very provocative book. And very timely! I love the idea of having critics’ essays included at the back – and it was really interesting to read how that affected your views on his theory. In the end, there must be value in anything that gets us debating these huge issues – particularly with the Paris forum happening so soon…Thanks, Stefanie!
LikeLike
widget, I’ve never read a book that included criticism of it at the end and I was surprised at how Morris’s rebuttal to that criticism affected my opinion of his thesis. I think more nonfiction books should do this kind of thing! Fingers crossed that things go well in Paris!
LikeLike
The way you have described the thesis sounds perfectly convincing to me. I would strongly recommend the Jane Smiley trilogy, The Last Hundred Years. I just finished Golden Age, the third volume and it was brilliant if completely unnerving, as Smiley ends it in 2019 when the environmental disasters are just beginning to hit. For instance, the Iowa farm around which the action revolves has topsoil of only two inches in 2019, as opposed to the 12-14 inches availble in 1920, and I don’t suppose she is making that up. I am starting to think of the earth as chronic fatigued – its basic energy supplies are massively depleted and it takes a long, long time for them to be renewed. But no one quite believes it, it seems, and we don’t change our patterns of behaviour and keep on plundering the world, expecting it to provide as it always has. I also couldn’t stop thinking about the way that the science that brought about hugely bountiful crops in the middle of the last century was blind to the way that it destroyed the natural goodness of the earth. What else does our science suggest enthusiastically that we do, which will have terrible unforeseen consequences? Sends a horrid chill down my spine.
LikeLike
Litlove, I think part of my initial reticence about the book is that I wanted to believe changes in value had everything to do with us spontaneously evolving into better people and nothing to do with something as seemingly random as energy capture. But being more secure and comfortable allows us to become better people so it isn’t completely mutually exclusive.
Thanks for the tip on the Smiley trilogy! I have not been paying attention to what the books are about so now you have me curious! What an interesting thought, the Earth has chronic fatigue. It seems a potentially creative way of approaching the problem. Well you know we just found out that all those little microbeads in soaps and detergents are made of plastic and have polluted our oceans and water systems . We have the bad habit of acting first and figuring out the consequences of those actions later. Definitely worthy of a horrid chill down the spine!
LikeLiked by 1 person
This isn’t necessarily a book I would probably pick up but what you wrote does make you think. I think of stories I’ve read in the news about small towns in Mexico, for example, that are practically ghost towns because no one is farming anymore because they can’t compete with the prices of bigger, industrial farms. It’s sad and it just makes me think how we can easily take for granted the abundance of food we have. What would happen if we had continual shortages, etc. Good stuff to think about.
LikeLike
Iliana, glad to provide some food for thought! It is definitely something we need to think about especially since agriculture as we know it is extremely fossil fuel dependent. I think we are entering a transitional period that between climate change and fuel, things could get extra challenging.
LikeLike
This sounds difficult but fascinating. I must find out more about that Jane Smiley sequence. I still wonder if there is a huge amount of denial going on . At our local library I have noticed just how few times Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything has been borrowed…a tiny, slightly disturbing sign.
LikeLike
Ian, most of the US operates in denial! The was fascinating and I am glad I stayed with it. Klein’s book is really good! I’m glad people are reading it, I hope more do!
LikeLike