What do you think?
Rate this book
失控的进步
一次猎杀一头长毛象，是生存；一次猎杀两头长毛象，是进步；
但一次猎杀两百头长毛象，则是进步过了头──
為什麼苏美、罗马、马雅和復活节岛文明，都在一千年间便步上瓦解的命运，而埃及、中国却能运行超过叁千年？
作者以其丰博的学养為底，用机妙的言辞、短小的篇幅和生动的实例，带我们游览古往今来的文明发展，反省「进步」所造就的神话。
在旧石器时代的尾声，克罗马儂人对尼安德塔人进行了人类史上第一椿大规模的种族屠杀，经歷了一万年的战争后，克罗马儂人站到了歷史的聚光灯下，成了现代智人的祖先。这些人猿的后代被丢到大自然的实验室中，进行所谓「文明」的实验：火、工具、农业、城市、金属、社会阶层、政府组织、到原子弹。
大大小小的实验被隔开来分头进行，復活节岛的高度工艺技巧，让人类将岛上的最后一棵树砍倒；苏美文明的农业灌溉技术，将中东的肥沃月湾地力耗尽，最后盐化為今日的沙漠；在大西洋的两岸，罗马帝国与马雅文明各自埋头苦干，随着帝国势力的扩张及人口的兴盛，愈发压榨着脚下的土地，最后各自步上衰败的道路。这些古老文明都踏入了「进步的陷阱」──在文明发展至巔峰时，对生态的索求也到达顶点，為了追求持续的成长繁荣，只好抢劫未来，以支付眼前的开销，最后将大自然赐予的款待洗劫一空，然后随着环境的崩毁而瓦解。进步就是不断的向前走，但我们最终得到了什麼？
「歷史每重演一次，代价就上涨一次。」地球上第一个文明苏美瓦解时，只影响到五十万人；罗马的衰亡则影响了上千万人；假若我们的现代文明失控，将為数十亿人带来无尽灾难。廿世纪期间，世界人口数成长了四倍，经济成长则超过四十倍，这样的进步以着大规模的猛烈攻击為代价，生物圈中没有一个角落能躲过这种大量出血性的耗损。今日的人类在经济层面上皆如出一辙，以整个地球的自然资本為生。在这场坚持「经济没有极限」的游戏中，过去的输家是穷人，如今玩输的，却是地球。
所幸我们能看到人类的力量是如此巨大，大到我们没有犯错的空间，唯有摆脱过去对进步的迷思，将思考模式从短视近利转换為长远的视界，将行动原则从轻率卤莽转為节制、谨慎，才能為我们的未来，规划出一条睿智的航道。
但一次猎杀两百头长毛象，则是进步过了头──
為什麼苏美、罗马、马雅和復活节岛文明，都在一千年间便步上瓦解的命运，而埃及、中国却能运行超过叁千年？
作者以其丰博的学养為底，用机妙的言辞、短小的篇幅和生动的实例，带我们游览古往今来的文明发展，反省「进步」所造就的神话。
在旧石器时代的尾声，克罗马儂人对尼安德塔人进行了人类史上第一椿大规模的种族屠杀，经歷了一万年的战争后，克罗马儂人站到了歷史的聚光灯下，成了现代智人的祖先。这些人猿的后代被丢到大自然的实验室中，进行所谓「文明」的实验：火、工具、农业、城市、金属、社会阶层、政府组织、到原子弹。
大大小小的实验被隔开来分头进行，復活节岛的高度工艺技巧，让人类将岛上的最后一棵树砍倒；苏美文明的农业灌溉技术，将中东的肥沃月湾地力耗尽，最后盐化為今日的沙漠；在大西洋的两岸，罗马帝国与马雅文明各自埋头苦干，随着帝国势力的扩张及人口的兴盛，愈发压榨着脚下的土地，最后各自步上衰败的道路。这些古老文明都踏入了「进步的陷阱」──在文明发展至巔峰时，对生态的索求也到达顶点，為了追求持续的成长繁荣，只好抢劫未来，以支付眼前的开销，最后将大自然赐予的款待洗劫一空，然后随着环境的崩毁而瓦解。进步就是不断的向前走，但我们最终得到了什麼？
「歷史每重演一次，代价就上涨一次。」地球上第一个文明苏美瓦解时，只影响到五十万人；罗马的衰亡则影响了上千万人；假若我们的现代文明失控，将為数十亿人带来无尽灾难。廿世纪期间，世界人口数成长了四倍，经济成长则超过四十倍，这样的进步以着大规模的猛烈攻击為代价，生物圈中没有一个角落能躲过这种大量出血性的耗损。今日的人类在经济层面上皆如出一辙，以整个地球的自然资本為生。在这场坚持「经济没有极限」的游戏中，过去的输家是穷人，如今玩输的，却是地球。
所幸我们能看到人类的力量是如此巨大，大到我们没有犯错的空间，唯有摆脱过去对进步的迷思，将思考模式从短视近利转换為长远的视界，将行动原则从轻率卤莽转為节制、谨慎，才能為我们的未来，规划出一条睿智的航道。
206 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2004
233 people are currently reading
10.4k people want to read
About the author
Ronald Wright
43?books151?followersRonald Wright is a Canadian author who has written books of travel, history and fiction. His nonfiction includes the bestseller Stolen Continents, winner of the Gordon Montador Award and chosen as a book of the year by the Independent and the Sunday Times. His first novel, A Scientific Romance, won the 1997 David Higham Prize for Fiction and was chosen a book of the year by the Globe and Mail, the Sunday Times, and the New York Times.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 487 reviews
January 3, 2011
I got a new friend on Good Reads the other day and glanced down her favourite quotes and spotted two quotes from this book – from the 2003 Massey Lectures. I’m quite fond of the Messey lectures as they are often really very good. Not all that different (in quality or style) from the Reith Lectures in Britain or even Australia’s very own Boyer Lectures (whose name I’ve spent the last couple of days trying to remember – a bit embarrassing that, when you think of it). This one was really very interesting – a bit like a cross between Collapse and Germs, Guns and Steel, if shorter and sometimes funnier.
The argument is pretty simple – we humans tend to make pretty much the same mistakes with this civilisation thing over and over again. He refers to these mistakes as ‘progress traps’. A really nice example of progress traps is the idea that it is great to build a village beside a river, but a pretty stupid idea to build a city beside one. It is a good idea for a village as the land beside the river generally has excellent soil for growing food. But villages tend to become cities by building and paving over what was once our best farming land. Bit of a mistake that, really. This problem is only made worse when we need to feed more people and to do that by growing food on what is increasingly more marginal land.
Do you know when someone says something and suddenly a whole series of ideas that you’ve known forever suddenly snap into place? That happened here when he talked about the relationship between rivers and salinity. Here is what I already knew. One of the first extinction events in the history of our planet occurred when trees first started growing. They broke up the soil and it was this that released salts into rivers that then flowed into the seas. After a while (a very long while) this caused oceans to become increasingly salty and that subtle and slow acting change killed off many of the biota (I’ve been wanting to use that word for ages) living on the planet, causing one of the first mass extinction events.
What I hadn’t thought of was the idea that rivers (which we generally think of as being filled with ‘fresh’ water) are actually the source of salt water. Except, clearly I did sort of know this before, I just didn’t really understand all of the implications. Now, what I learnt from this book was that one of the things we humans do (one of the progress traps we find ourselves in) is to use rivers to irrigate our fields. We channel what is deceptively mostly fresh water (with tiny amounts of salt) onto our fields where we grow our food. The water evaporates and leaves behind tiny amount of salt – repeat this process with abandon over a couple of hundreds of years and the field stops being able to produce food anymore.
He also discusses the other little problem we have with food – the fact that animals that only eat one kind of food generally end up extinct when something bad happens to that particular food type – think Giant Panda or Koala or Humans. We like to think of ourselves as omnivores, but in fact, our food of choice, despite appearances, is oil. We use it to grow all of the other foods we eat (super nitrate anyone?) and to transport our food from distant fields to supermarkets to kitchen. When the oil runs out we have much more to lose than just the convenience of getting from here to there in a SUV with only ourselves on board.
Comparisons are made here with the collapse of other civilisations that have existed along the way and the remarkably common features each of these collapses had. Generally these involved people living beyond their means, fouling their own nests and then finding that nature doesn’t always come ‘roaring back again’.
The book ends with something that I’ve been becoming increasingly concerned about over the last little while. It is the idea that what is most likely to presage collapse is the increasing inequity of the distribution of the wealth of society. This was true, it seems, of the collapse of the Mayans, also the less than happy folk of Easter Island, of Rome and the frighteningly close and all too recent ‘end of the world event’ we had in the Great Depression.
It seems that wealth distribution tends to become absurdly unequal as things become increasingly dire and precarious for civilisation. And with increasing greed comes increasing unconcern (‘no, that’s fine, cut down the last tree, pull out the last fish, hunt the last whale – God will provide, bring on the end times, science will fix things’) until beyond the time when we have gone too far. On a planet where we are quickly and quietly heading towards a population of seven billion people with stagnant (perhaps even diminishing) food production, maybe now is a good time to start thinking about if our practices are sustainable long term what we can do about them if they are not.
Instead we seem to be doing quite the opposite, gorging ourselves with both hands. And talk about inequitable distribution. As he says here, at the time of writing the richest three people in the world owned as much as the bottom 48 countries. Has there ever been a time in human history when such incomprehensible inequity existed? I’ve been surprised by how often, in discussion inequity of this scale with Americans on various internet sites, that I’m told that I wouldn’t understand freedom as I live in a socialist country. Firstly, Australia is about as close to being a socialist country as my arse is to being a sharpshooter – and secondly, what sort of freedom is it where one person has everything and everyone else sees their wealth diminishing towards nothing? He explains this paradox by quoting a line of Steinbeck: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporality embarrassed millionaires.”
This book seeks to provide comfort by the thought that we have lived through these kinds of collapses before and that we can therefore finally learn from past errors and change enough this time so as to avert catastrophe. I guess you can almost smell the error in that little piece of logic – the all too dismally apparent fact that the one thing we never learn from is history – particularly ‘other people’s history’. So, although this book isn’t unremittingly depressing, it comes fairly close. I recommend it all the same.
The argument is pretty simple – we humans tend to make pretty much the same mistakes with this civilisation thing over and over again. He refers to these mistakes as ‘progress traps’. A really nice example of progress traps is the idea that it is great to build a village beside a river, but a pretty stupid idea to build a city beside one. It is a good idea for a village as the land beside the river generally has excellent soil for growing food. But villages tend to become cities by building and paving over what was once our best farming land. Bit of a mistake that, really. This problem is only made worse when we need to feed more people and to do that by growing food on what is increasingly more marginal land.
Do you know when someone says something and suddenly a whole series of ideas that you’ve known forever suddenly snap into place? That happened here when he talked about the relationship between rivers and salinity. Here is what I already knew. One of the first extinction events in the history of our planet occurred when trees first started growing. They broke up the soil and it was this that released salts into rivers that then flowed into the seas. After a while (a very long while) this caused oceans to become increasingly salty and that subtle and slow acting change killed off many of the biota (I’ve been wanting to use that word for ages) living on the planet, causing one of the first mass extinction events.
What I hadn’t thought of was the idea that rivers (which we generally think of as being filled with ‘fresh’ water) are actually the source of salt water. Except, clearly I did sort of know this before, I just didn’t really understand all of the implications. Now, what I learnt from this book was that one of the things we humans do (one of the progress traps we find ourselves in) is to use rivers to irrigate our fields. We channel what is deceptively mostly fresh water (with tiny amounts of salt) onto our fields where we grow our food. The water evaporates and leaves behind tiny amount of salt – repeat this process with abandon over a couple of hundreds of years and the field stops being able to produce food anymore.
He also discusses the other little problem we have with food – the fact that animals that only eat one kind of food generally end up extinct when something bad happens to that particular food type – think Giant Panda or Koala or Humans. We like to think of ourselves as omnivores, but in fact, our food of choice, despite appearances, is oil. We use it to grow all of the other foods we eat (super nitrate anyone?) and to transport our food from distant fields to supermarkets to kitchen. When the oil runs out we have much more to lose than just the convenience of getting from here to there in a SUV with only ourselves on board.
Comparisons are made here with the collapse of other civilisations that have existed along the way and the remarkably common features each of these collapses had. Generally these involved people living beyond their means, fouling their own nests and then finding that nature doesn’t always come ‘roaring back again’.
The book ends with something that I’ve been becoming increasingly concerned about over the last little while. It is the idea that what is most likely to presage collapse is the increasing inequity of the distribution of the wealth of society. This was true, it seems, of the collapse of the Mayans, also the less than happy folk of Easter Island, of Rome and the frighteningly close and all too recent ‘end of the world event’ we had in the Great Depression.
It seems that wealth distribution tends to become absurdly unequal as things become increasingly dire and precarious for civilisation. And with increasing greed comes increasing unconcern (‘no, that’s fine, cut down the last tree, pull out the last fish, hunt the last whale – God will provide, bring on the end times, science will fix things’) until beyond the time when we have gone too far. On a planet where we are quickly and quietly heading towards a population of seven billion people with stagnant (perhaps even diminishing) food production, maybe now is a good time to start thinking about if our practices are sustainable long term what we can do about them if they are not.
Instead we seem to be doing quite the opposite, gorging ourselves with both hands. And talk about inequitable distribution. As he says here, at the time of writing the richest three people in the world owned as much as the bottom 48 countries. Has there ever been a time in human history when such incomprehensible inequity existed? I’ve been surprised by how often, in discussion inequity of this scale with Americans on various internet sites, that I’m told that I wouldn’t understand freedom as I live in a socialist country. Firstly, Australia is about as close to being a socialist country as my arse is to being a sharpshooter – and secondly, what sort of freedom is it where one person has everything and everyone else sees their wealth diminishing towards nothing? He explains this paradox by quoting a line of Steinbeck: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporality embarrassed millionaires.”
This book seeks to provide comfort by the thought that we have lived through these kinds of collapses before and that we can therefore finally learn from past errors and change enough this time so as to avert catastrophe. I guess you can almost smell the error in that little piece of logic – the all too dismally apparent fact that the one thing we never learn from is history – particularly ‘other people’s history’. So, although this book isn’t unremittingly depressing, it comes fairly close. I recommend it all the same.
May 2, 2021
4.5
"??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???"
??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????. ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????. ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????????? ?? ????? ????? ? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ???.
?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ? ??? "?? ?????" ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??. ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??? ????? ???? ? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????.
???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????. ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ???? ? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ????.
??? ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ????. ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????
"??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???"
??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????. ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????. ???? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????????? ?? ????? ????? ? ????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ????? ? ???????? ????? ???? ?????? ???.
?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????????? ?????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ? ??? "?? ?????" ?? ????? ??????? ???? ??. ?? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??????????? ????????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??? ????? ???? ? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????.
???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ???????? ?????? ??? ? ???????? ??????? ??????? ????? ? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?????. ?? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ???? ? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ????.
??? ?????. ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???????? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ????. ?????? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ????????? ??????
Read
January 18, 2022
"Bir yerine iki mamut ?ldürmeyi ??renen paleolitik d?nem avc?lar? ilerleme kaydetmi?lerdi. 200 mamut birden ?ldürmeyi ??renmeyi ??renenlerse (bir sürüyü yukar?dan a?a?? do?ru sürenler) fazla ileriye gitmi?lerdi. Bir süre bolluk i?inde ya?ad?ktan sonra, a?l?ktan ?lüp gittiler."
(s.12)
Wright'in, k?saca "ilerlemenin tehlikeli boyutunu" ele alan bu kü?ük ama dopdolu kitab? bizlere ?ok ?ey s?ylüyor. Kitap, ?zetle ?u ü? soruya yan?t ar?yor, Gaugin'in bir tablosunun ismi olan "D'ou Venon Nous? Que Sommes Nous? Ou Allon Nous?" yani Nereden Geliyoruz, Neyiz, Nereye Gidiyoruz sorular?n?n yan?t?n?. Yazar bu sorulara yan?t ararken ?u y?ntemi tercih ediyor; evet bir trende ilerliyoruz fakat ba??m?za ileride geleceklerin yan?tlar?, bizden ?ncekilerin ??kmü? medeniyetlerinin kara kutular?nda sakl? olabilir. "... ?ünkü arkam?zda b?rakt???m?z ?ok fazla gemi enkaz? var." (s.7).
Wright Paskalya Adas? sakinleri, Sümerler, Roma, Maya ba?ta olmak üzere tarihte di?er medeniyetlerin parlak d?nemlerinden sonra nas?l ??kü?e u?rad?klar?n?n ipu?lar?n? takip ediyor. Vard??? sonu? ise bizim gitti?imiz yola ?ok benziyor! Bütün medeniyetler -t?pk? bizim gibi- nüfus patlamas?, ekolojinin tahrip olmas?, üretimin dü?mesi ve insanlar?n sa?l?ks?z beslenmesi bunun ard?ndan ya?anan siyasi krizlerle yok olmu?lar neredeyse. Yazar bu noktada bizleri uyar?yor, bizim sonumuz da benzer olabilir. Hem de belki k?sac?k bir zamanda, bir ?mür i?erisinde!
"?imdi, gelece?i düzeltmek i?in son ?ans?m?z." (s.141)
Wright'in, k?saca "ilerlemenin tehlikeli boyutunu" ele alan bu kü?ük ama dopdolu kitab? bizlere ?ok ?ey s?ylüyor. Kitap, ?zetle ?u ü? soruya yan?t ar?yor, Gaugin'in bir tablosunun ismi olan "D'ou Venon Nous? Que Sommes Nous? Ou Allon Nous?" yani Nereden Geliyoruz, Neyiz, Nereye Gidiyoruz sorular?n?n yan?t?n?. Yazar bu sorulara yan?t ararken ?u y?ntemi tercih ediyor; evet bir trende ilerliyoruz fakat ba??m?za ileride geleceklerin yan?tlar?, bizden ?ncekilerin ??kmü? medeniyetlerinin kara kutular?nda sakl? olabilir. "... ?ünkü arkam?zda b?rakt???m?z ?ok fazla gemi enkaz? var." (s.7).
Wright Paskalya Adas? sakinleri, Sümerler, Roma, Maya ba?ta olmak üzere tarihte di?er medeniyetlerin parlak d?nemlerinden sonra nas?l ??kü?e u?rad?klar?n?n ipu?lar?n? takip ediyor. Vard??? sonu? ise bizim gitti?imiz yola ?ok benziyor! Bütün medeniyetler -t?pk? bizim gibi- nüfus patlamas?, ekolojinin tahrip olmas?, üretimin dü?mesi ve insanlar?n sa?l?ks?z beslenmesi bunun ard?ndan ya?anan siyasi krizlerle yok olmu?lar neredeyse. Yazar bu noktada bizleri uyar?yor, bizim sonumuz da benzer olabilir. Hem de belki k?sac?k bir zamanda, bir ?mür i?erisinde!
"?imdi, gelece?i düzeltmek i?in son ?ans?m?z." (s.141)
Read
October 21, 2024Ronald Wright is archaeologist by training and that is very clear in the excellent chapters on the earliest human history, in line with the latest state of science (2005). But then he deviates from this line and follows a chain of disasters that have befallen humanity, starting with the agricultural revolution, 10.000 years ago. Wright equals the progress that humanity has been going through with a downward spiral to perdition.
His approach, - to study what the earlier civilizations were doing wrong to draw lessons for our beleaguered world today - , can be seen as a noble objective. And certainly in the first cases (Easter Island, Sumer) he does that with in a nuanced way, but then (especially starting from the part about the Mayan Empire) he becomes so engaged and tendentious that the work evolves into a pamphlet? For instance, his assertion that the American colonists borrowed their democratic principles from the Cherokee Indians looks like a very strange hypothesis (David Graeber and David Wengrow pick it up in , with an equally dubious argumentation).
Ronald Wright is trapped in a perfect circular argument: his premise ("the current system is a suicide machine") is inevitably also his conclusion. In addition, at the end, he adds some very populist anti-capitalist rhetoric. I am absolutely in favor of a critical view on things, and I share for 100% Wright's concern for the survival of our planet, but this is so primal pessimism that it is no longer tolerable. This book is the perfect illustration of how irrational fears can block the brain cells and result in the most erratic conclusions.
His approach, - to study what the earlier civilizations were doing wrong to draw lessons for our beleaguered world today - , can be seen as a noble objective. And certainly in the first cases (Easter Island, Sumer) he does that with in a nuanced way, but then (especially starting from the part about the Mayan Empire) he becomes so engaged and tendentious that the work evolves into a pamphlet? For instance, his assertion that the American colonists borrowed their democratic principles from the Cherokee Indians looks like a very strange hypothesis (David Graeber and David Wengrow pick it up in , with an equally dubious argumentation).
Ronald Wright is trapped in a perfect circular argument: his premise ("the current system is a suicide machine") is inevitably also his conclusion. In addition, at the end, he adds some very populist anti-capitalist rhetoric. I am absolutely in favor of a critical view on things, and I share for 100% Wright's concern for the survival of our planet, but this is so primal pessimism that it is no longer tolerable. This book is the perfect illustration of how irrational fears can block the brain cells and result in the most erratic conclusions.
December 7, 2008
Ronald Wright bases his book/lecture series around three seemingly simple, yet profound questions that have haunted human beings since time began.
'Where did we come from?'
'What are we?'
'Where are we going?'
If you have any curiosity about the answers to these questions, don't hesitate to pick up 'A Short history of progress'.
From these three questions, Wright takes us on a whirlwind tour of human history, from the dawn of humanity to the present day.
By answering the first two questions, Wright seeks to answer to third and most difficult question, 'Where are we going?'. Unsurprisingly, the outlook is bleak. Wright predicts that our society will collapse like so many other ancient civilisations, Easter Island and Sumerian society being the most prominent examples, but on a much grander scale. To avoid the downfall of our civilisation, we must wake up and realise that we can no longer afford to repeat history.
What sets Wright apart from other historians is his talent for compressing so much into so little time, while preserving the essence of his material. His biting wit, skill with language and dry sense of humour make his lectures a pleasure to listen to (contrast to the average university lecture!). Wright’s book, despite the breadth of its subject matter, is extremely readable. Compared to Jared Diamond’s verbose works, ‘A Short History’ is accessible to even the least academically inclined among us.
'Where did we come from?'
'What are we?'
'Where are we going?'
If you have any curiosity about the answers to these questions, don't hesitate to pick up 'A Short history of progress'.
From these three questions, Wright takes us on a whirlwind tour of human history, from the dawn of humanity to the present day.
By answering the first two questions, Wright seeks to answer to third and most difficult question, 'Where are we going?'. Unsurprisingly, the outlook is bleak. Wright predicts that our society will collapse like so many other ancient civilisations, Easter Island and Sumerian society being the most prominent examples, but on a much grander scale. To avoid the downfall of our civilisation, we must wake up and realise that we can no longer afford to repeat history.
What sets Wright apart from other historians is his talent for compressing so much into so little time, while preserving the essence of his material. His biting wit, skill with language and dry sense of humour make his lectures a pleasure to listen to (contrast to the average university lecture!). Wright’s book, despite the breadth of its subject matter, is extremely readable. Compared to Jared Diamond’s verbose works, ‘A Short History’ is accessible to even the least academically inclined among us.
April 28, 2021
The Great Experiment
So. Sitting here on Sunday, March 14th, 2021, having finished Wrights short book on civilisation, and despite it being 2.50am, I don't feel sleepy.
This was first printed in 2005, 16 years ago.
Frankly, it feels as if we're on our way to fulfilling the predictable pattern that - as pointed out in the book by Wright - the Romans, Mayans, Sumerians and countless other civilisational experiments ended on. The corona-virus has pretty much shown how fragile and damaged our economic and political systems are, and it apparently seems to be an omen of things yet to come.
In previous iterations of critiques toward capitalism, I've realised that these critiques originated from humans only; human institutions; humans invested in different ideologies. Other humans are easily crushed by the status quo if needed (although not always successfully). Hence why civilisational 'progress' has carried on pretty much unabated. Sure, there's been big changes within civilisational structures, (feudalism, mercentalism, capitalism, attempts at socialism) but even the most radical ideas of equality and abundance were formed on the precept of environmental abundance being available in the first place. But now? For the first time a separate actor is critiquing and highlighting the inadequacies of our system; nature itself. And it's holding up a mirror to humanity to show how really, truly, awful this system is. All ideologies, ideas of how humans should live, and attempts at structured hierarchical living, were born from civilisational expansion - all the way back to the agricultural evolution - that are unbelievably young when compared to all of human history.
Yet, now that we can look back on ourselves utilising science and technological progress, we can see that before capitalism, we were - consciously in some cases, unconsciously in others - gutting the planet way before the prior mentioned ever came into existence. Various civilisational flare ups, at various points of history, for quite some time (collectively these flare ups became more frequent and irreversible as time went on). This can even be noted, as Wright points out, to proceed back to pre-civilisational humans killing off their environmental food providers in the case of wolly mammoths; once we had the technology to do so we went wild and failed to stop.
Its truly difficult to not assume that our relentlessly brilliant adaptation to different environments (hence our expansion to all corners of the globe out of Africa), coupled with our inability to easily remove each of ourselves from our immediate environmental needs (made from hundreds of thousands of years of small bands of hunter / gathering tribes) and egotistical desires has made us destined for this moment in time from the start. Its difficult to lay blame on individuals sometimes when I wonder why hierarchy and power affect humans in such a systematic way. Even as a self-proclaimed anarchist that detests these things, I am sometimes contemplative as to whether we're trapped by how the prior mentioned affects our species without fail. Various information I've glimpsed such as how money can stimulate the brain in a similar fashion to coke, and how power can almost be an addiction unto itself, comes to mind. I can't prove this obviously, but, as I say, the more I read, the more I wonder why hierarchy works the way it does.
Wright leaves me thinking what I found myself contemplating after reading other books critiquing civilisation (see: A Short History of Civilisation and Endgame: The Problem with Civilisation); are we actually viable as a species? It's difficult to not contemplate it if perhaps we are genuinely locked into the same cyclical pattern of rise and fall as any other species that has overused its environment on this planet. Our apparent advantages over other species, self awareness, creativity, our big brains, seems only to be giving us the ability to contemplate these collapses in greater more depressing detail as individuals, whilst collectively we run head first into the blender. These advantaged don't seem to be actually pulling us out of this bizarre and destructive pattern; otherwise I feel it would've stopped by now. Despite great innovation and scientific advances we still seem locked into a disastrously destructive path.
At times it does make me wonder if civilisation was inevitable; nature's way of just getting us to eventually wipe ourselves off the planet. All just complete speculation obviously, but you can't finish reading books critiquing concepts so fundamentally unquestioned that they go beyond capitalism, feudalism and all other 'isms' into the realm of 'is what birthed the prior mentioned ideas going to destroy us?' without wondering what the Hell we exactly are.
This may end up sounding like some retrograde denomination of a nihilistic, biological determinism (which I don't subscribe to, as I believe we have choices presented to us at all times to act differently), but seeing as we seem to keep dressing up the same old, broken, civilisational garment in new garbs, it's hard not to wonder if, when humans are arranged in certain hierarchical structures, we won't act out similar outcomes consistently.
It's difficult whether to recommend this as a book for action or a final curtain call to read as a soliloquy to the species once we really realise its too late.
I think it's best you decide.
So. Sitting here on Sunday, March 14th, 2021, having finished Wrights short book on civilisation, and despite it being 2.50am, I don't feel sleepy.
This was first printed in 2005, 16 years ago.
Frankly, it feels as if we're on our way to fulfilling the predictable pattern that - as pointed out in the book by Wright - the Romans, Mayans, Sumerians and countless other civilisational experiments ended on. The corona-virus has pretty much shown how fragile and damaged our economic and political systems are, and it apparently seems to be an omen of things yet to come.
In previous iterations of critiques toward capitalism, I've realised that these critiques originated from humans only; human institutions; humans invested in different ideologies. Other humans are easily crushed by the status quo if needed (although not always successfully). Hence why civilisational 'progress' has carried on pretty much unabated. Sure, there's been big changes within civilisational structures, (feudalism, mercentalism, capitalism, attempts at socialism) but even the most radical ideas of equality and abundance were formed on the precept of environmental abundance being available in the first place. But now? For the first time a separate actor is critiquing and highlighting the inadequacies of our system; nature itself. And it's holding up a mirror to humanity to show how really, truly, awful this system is. All ideologies, ideas of how humans should live, and attempts at structured hierarchical living, were born from civilisational expansion - all the way back to the agricultural evolution - that are unbelievably young when compared to all of human history.
Yet, now that we can look back on ourselves utilising science and technological progress, we can see that before capitalism, we were - consciously in some cases, unconsciously in others - gutting the planet way before the prior mentioned ever came into existence. Various civilisational flare ups, at various points of history, for quite some time (collectively these flare ups became more frequent and irreversible as time went on). This can even be noted, as Wright points out, to proceed back to pre-civilisational humans killing off their environmental food providers in the case of wolly mammoths; once we had the technology to do so we went wild and failed to stop.
Its truly difficult to not assume that our relentlessly brilliant adaptation to different environments (hence our expansion to all corners of the globe out of Africa), coupled with our inability to easily remove each of ourselves from our immediate environmental needs (made from hundreds of thousands of years of small bands of hunter / gathering tribes) and egotistical desires has made us destined for this moment in time from the start. Its difficult to lay blame on individuals sometimes when I wonder why hierarchy and power affect humans in such a systematic way. Even as a self-proclaimed anarchist that detests these things, I am sometimes contemplative as to whether we're trapped by how the prior mentioned affects our species without fail. Various information I've glimpsed such as how money can stimulate the brain in a similar fashion to coke, and how power can almost be an addiction unto itself, comes to mind. I can't prove this obviously, but, as I say, the more I read, the more I wonder why hierarchy works the way it does.
Wright leaves me thinking what I found myself contemplating after reading other books critiquing civilisation (see: A Short History of Civilisation and Endgame: The Problem with Civilisation); are we actually viable as a species? It's difficult to not contemplate it if perhaps we are genuinely locked into the same cyclical pattern of rise and fall as any other species that has overused its environment on this planet. Our apparent advantages over other species, self awareness, creativity, our big brains, seems only to be giving us the ability to contemplate these collapses in greater more depressing detail as individuals, whilst collectively we run head first into the blender. These advantaged don't seem to be actually pulling us out of this bizarre and destructive pattern; otherwise I feel it would've stopped by now. Despite great innovation and scientific advances we still seem locked into a disastrously destructive path.
At times it does make me wonder if civilisation was inevitable; nature's way of just getting us to eventually wipe ourselves off the planet. All just complete speculation obviously, but you can't finish reading books critiquing concepts so fundamentally unquestioned that they go beyond capitalism, feudalism and all other 'isms' into the realm of 'is what birthed the prior mentioned ideas going to destroy us?' without wondering what the Hell we exactly are.
This may end up sounding like some retrograde denomination of a nihilistic, biological determinism (which I don't subscribe to, as I believe we have choices presented to us at all times to act differently), but seeing as we seem to keep dressing up the same old, broken, civilisational garment in new garbs, it's hard not to wonder if, when humans are arranged in certain hierarchical structures, we won't act out similar outcomes consistently.
It's difficult whether to recommend this as a book for action or a final curtain call to read as a soliloquy to the species once we really realise its too late.
I think it's best you decide.
April 30, 2021
This book is the worst kind of intellectual flattery. People will read it, take in all the big words and big facts, and feel like they've filled their brain with something, though they won't be any more informed or articulate about its topics than they were previously unless they hadn't happened to have heard about, for example, what happened at Rapa Nui before. Let me tell you now that you can find a better source for every fact you can find in this book, and save yourself the patchy, poorly-argued thesis that is supposed to tie all Wright's anecdotes together, which could easily make you more confused about the patterns of history and what we can expect for the future. The consumption of pop nonfiction like this is an agonising illustration of what I can only call the literary Dunning-Kruger effect.
I picked up this book second-hand expecting that, given the number of citations throughout, there would be a substantial argument for me to critically engage with. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up to a critical reading, and it's more of a dressed-up, waffling opinion than the comprehensive kind of analysis I was hoping for, which would have been an argument for patterns in the course of human progress based on a tested hypothesis. Wright's ultimate thesis might happen to be correct, but he's presented it more to persuade than to prove. I can't help but find this intellectually insulting.
The shallow arguments appear to have originated with a conclusion rather than the evidence, which is a frustrating trend in fields like social history. A book like this, if it claims any informative authority, ought to present the results of a rigorous investigation which sought the interpretation of history with the most explanatory and predictive power. As such it presents little more than just-so stories, even if the included facts are correct in all their specifics.
The citations are peppered in seemingly wherever the author has previously come across something that fits into his picture of the ancient world. Clearly the relayed historical anecdotes, which are fascinating for those first encountering them, are enough to convince the casual reader that the author is drawing on a breadth and depth of knowledge which isn't evidently there. Judging by how unsystematically he places his references, how broadly he quotes and how dubiously he chooses his sources, he is either trying to inflate a very shallow background or he is making intentional omissions to make his case look better.
There's one passage in particular which doesn't even make an argument. Here he just strings together some vague correlations to appeal to political prejudice, as far as I can tell. He mentions that early human communities tended to shift from a state of egalitarian subsistence, with everyone contributing and receiving about the same, to unequal distributions of wealth and power as the populations rose. But instead of elaborating what this means, he digresses:
Let's stop there for now. What does this tangent have to do with anything that had come before? He's making observations on the genocidal battles that arose when resources became scarce due to overpopulation — what does that have to do with foes that are 'elusive or imaginary'? It is patently disingenuous to take instances where human life actually and tragically became a zero sum game, in which some must perish for others to survive, and try to draw parallels with deceptive warmongering. You do not have to trick a people who are on the point of starvation into feeling that another group beginning to encroach on their territory is a threat. I don't know how to read this other than petty point-scoring against the concept of nationalism and military defense, as if their prototypes in early tribes indicate something profound about their purpose or necessity. We're left to suppose that people have only ever come into conflict through the manipulation of a Hitler.
He continues this diatribe with more cherry-picked, decontextualised examples:
This misplaced political argument isn't even a good one. All the things he lists are previous threats that could only be dealt with through some form of military defense. Communists have successfully gutted several nations, even in the years since this book was published. But how telling is it that he thinks a reader should seek more information from a novel than any of history's nonfiction writings which give evidence of the longstanding existence of terrorist tactics? As much as I love Joseph Conrad, there's a time and a place for recommending his novels. I can't help suspect that this is the only book on the topic of terrorism that Wright happens to have personally read, with an early enough publication date to make his point.
He ends the paragraph there, so the reader can forget what he was originally on about. He got to the point he wanted to make, so who cares how he got there, right? I was tempted to stop reading there, since I didn't think I should take more interest in how he built his argument than he himself did, but I was genuinely curious to see how he approached the successes of capitalism in eradicating the poverty he takes such an interest in.
However, besides citing instances where unchecked growth has exhausted local ecologies, a pattern he shows is not peculiar to capitalism but which capitalists as anyone else should obviously be wary of, he simply omits any detail that may accidentally show how much the societal practices of voluntarism, free enterprise and free trade have done to reduce global poverty and improve the life quality of the poor all over the world through the creation of new value, in a break from the trajectory of the pre-industrial world that is staggering if one merely looks at the numbers. (Of course one could go on to note how this can be impeded or grossly misappropriated by governmental interference in capitalism.) In any case, I know that this betrays my own economic politics, but anyone interested in the successes and failures of human "progress" should be able to account for that noteworthy trend, much less mention it.
This book is an embarrassment which can only impress pop-history readers and those who will take any argument that is framed to appeal to their existing worldview. Don't waste your time if you're seeking to be either informed or intellectually stimulated.
I picked up this book second-hand expecting that, given the number of citations throughout, there would be a substantial argument for me to critically engage with. Unfortunately it doesn't hold up to a critical reading, and it's more of a dressed-up, waffling opinion than the comprehensive kind of analysis I was hoping for, which would have been an argument for patterns in the course of human progress based on a tested hypothesis. Wright's ultimate thesis might happen to be correct, but he's presented it more to persuade than to prove. I can't help but find this intellectually insulting.
The shallow arguments appear to have originated with a conclusion rather than the evidence, which is a frustrating trend in fields like social history. A book like this, if it claims any informative authority, ought to present the results of a rigorous investigation which sought the interpretation of history with the most explanatory and predictive power. As such it presents little more than just-so stories, even if the included facts are correct in all their specifics.
The citations are peppered in seemingly wherever the author has previously come across something that fits into his picture of the ancient world. Clearly the relayed historical anecdotes, which are fascinating for those first encountering them, are enough to convince the casual reader that the author is drawing on a breadth and depth of knowledge which isn't evidently there. Judging by how unsystematically he places his references, how broadly he quotes and how dubiously he chooses his sources, he is either trying to inflate a very shallow background or he is making intentional omissions to make his case look better.
There's one passage in particular which doesn't even make an argument. Here he just strings together some vague correlations to appeal to political prejudice, as far as I can tell. He mentions that early human communities tended to shift from a state of egalitarian subsistence, with everyone contributing and receiving about the same, to unequal distributions of wealth and power as the populations rose. But instead of elaborating what this means, he digresses:
...This pattern first appears in the Neolithic villages of the Middle East, and it has recurred all over the world. The first farmers along the Danube, for example, left only tools in their remains; later settlements are heavily fortified and strewn with weapons. Here, said the great Australian archaeologist Gordon Childe, "we almost see the state of war of all against all arising as... land becomes scarce." Writing these words in 1942, during Hitler's expansionist policy of Lebensraum, Childe did not need to underline how little the world had changed from Stone Age times to his.
Patriotism may indeed be, as Dr. Johnson said, "the last refuge of a scoundrel," but it's also the tyrant's first resort. People afraid of outsiders are easily manipulated. The warrior caste, supposedly society's protectors, often become protection racketeers. In times of war or crisis, power is easily stolen from the many by the few on a promise of security. The more elusive or imaginary the foe, the better for manufacturing consent.
Let's stop there for now. What does this tangent have to do with anything that had come before? He's making observations on the genocidal battles that arose when resources became scarce due to overpopulation — what does that have to do with foes that are 'elusive or imaginary'? It is patently disingenuous to take instances where human life actually and tragically became a zero sum game, in which some must perish for others to survive, and try to draw parallels with deceptive warmongering. You do not have to trick a people who are on the point of starvation into feeling that another group beginning to encroach on their territory is a threat. I don't know how to read this other than petty point-scoring against the concept of nationalism and military defense, as if their prototypes in early tribes indicate something profound about their purpose or necessity. We're left to suppose that people have only ever come into conflict through the manipulation of a Hitler.
He continues this diatribe with more cherry-picked, decontextualised examples:
The Inquisition did a roaring trade against the Devil. And the twentieth century's struggle between capitalism and communism had all the hallmarks of the old religious wars. Was defending either system really worth the risk of blowing up the world?
Now we are losing hard-won freedoms on the pretext of a worldwide "war on terror," as if terrorism were something new. (Those who think it is should read The Secret Agent, a novel in which anarchist suicide bombers prowl London wearing explosives; it was written by Joseph Conrad a hundred years ago.) The Muslim fanatic is proving a worthy replacement for the heretic, the anarchist, and especially the Red Menace so helpful to military budgets throughout the Cold War.
This misplaced political argument isn't even a good one. All the things he lists are previous threats that could only be dealt with through some form of military defense. Communists have successfully gutted several nations, even in the years since this book was published. But how telling is it that he thinks a reader should seek more information from a novel than any of history's nonfiction writings which give evidence of the longstanding existence of terrorist tactics? As much as I love Joseph Conrad, there's a time and a place for recommending his novels. I can't help suspect that this is the only book on the topic of terrorism that Wright happens to have personally read, with an early enough publication date to make his point.
He ends the paragraph there, so the reader can forget what he was originally on about. He got to the point he wanted to make, so who cares how he got there, right? I was tempted to stop reading there, since I didn't think I should take more interest in how he built his argument than he himself did, but I was genuinely curious to see how he approached the successes of capitalism in eradicating the poverty he takes such an interest in.
However, besides citing instances where unchecked growth has exhausted local ecologies, a pattern he shows is not peculiar to capitalism but which capitalists as anyone else should obviously be wary of, he simply omits any detail that may accidentally show how much the societal practices of voluntarism, free enterprise and free trade have done to reduce global poverty and improve the life quality of the poor all over the world through the creation of new value, in a break from the trajectory of the pre-industrial world that is staggering if one merely looks at the numbers. (Of course one could go on to note how this can be impeded or grossly misappropriated by governmental interference in capitalism.) In any case, I know that this betrays my own economic politics, but anyone interested in the successes and failures of human "progress" should be able to account for that noteworthy trend, much less mention it.
This book is an embarrassment which can only impress pop-history readers and those who will take any argument that is framed to appeal to their existing worldview. Don't waste your time if you're seeking to be either informed or intellectually stimulated.
May 29, 2017
A solid, information-filled history of human civilizations and their downfalls or demises, in just 132 pages of text and 54 pages of substantive endnotes. I had wondered whether the 2004 publication date would make a difference, but except for some new discoveries in the paleontological record of Neanderthals, it really does not, since this is a big-picture, panoramic long-view study. Interesting that this could be read as a sort of condensed version of Diamond's Collapse - but I think Wright took a swipe at Diamond - can't find the reference now and he's in the biblio. but not the index.
While listening to Krista Tippett's book a few days ago I heard Richard Rodriquez talk about visiting the desolate deserts of the Middle East's Holy Lands, and coming to a deep realization of the significance of that lonely desert landscape in the origin of monotheism and emergence of three world religions. It was persuasive in a sort of woo-woo way and I didn't think about it too critically. Reading Wright's book reminded that it was once fertile crescent of marshes and waterways, irrigation and agriculture, that became desert through a combination of climate change and misuse/overuse. There is a lesson there that is important not to forget.
While listening to Krista Tippett's book a few days ago I heard Richard Rodriquez talk about visiting the desolate deserts of the Middle East's Holy Lands, and coming to a deep realization of the significance of that lonely desert landscape in the origin of monotheism and emergence of three world religions. It was persuasive in a sort of woo-woo way and I didn't think about it too critically. Reading Wright's book reminded that it was once fertile crescent of marshes and waterways, irrigation and agriculture, that became desert through a combination of climate change and misuse/overuse. There is a lesson there that is important not to forget.
May 26, 2021
????? ??????? ? ???? ???? ???.??? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ? ?????.????? ?? ?? ????? ??????.
October 3, 2015
I read this book about 10 years ago (in 2005) and it greatly impressed me. In some ways, this is the book that Jared Diamond should have written instead of Collapse — it’s much shorter and punchier. It doesn’t have the same sort of detail and case histories that Diamond has, but he keeps the reader’s interest with his vivid writing and the sweep of the spectacle which he depicts.
His prevailing image is that of "progress traps" such as befell Mesopotamia and the Maya. The wrecks of our failed experiments in civilization lie scattered in deserts and jungles like crashed airliners; if we can recover the "flight recorders" we can tell what went wrong and avoid it. He also cites relatively stable civilizations such as those in Egypt and China. "The greatest wonder of the ancient world is how recent it all is. No city or monument is much more than 5,000 years old" (p. 55).
The main examples he relies on are Sumeria, Rome, the Maya, and Easter Island. He distinguishes between true collapses and political upheavals like the French and Russian revolutions — the exhaustion of social, rather than natural, capital. When nature starts to foreclose, the social contract breaks down. "Such a civilization is therefore most unstable at its peak, when it has reached maximum demand on the ecology. Unless a new source of wealth or energy appears, it has no room left to raise production or absorb the shock of natural fluctuations. The only way onward is to keep wringing new loans from nature and humanity" (p. 84).
I’m not sure of all of his details. He says that "Rome’s ancient breadbaskets are filled with sand and dust" (p. 94). It’s true that much of North Africa has been turned to desert in the past 3000 years, but my impression was that this was due to Arab herdsmen and pastoralists who came in after the fall of Rome. There is probably some truth to the idea that Rome was weakened already through environmental damage, and perhaps Joseph Tainter underestimates the impact of the environment on Rome’s fall, but I’d like a little more detail on this point before concluding that the fall of Rome as due primarily to environmental causes. Tainter makes a good case that inflation of Rome's currency was a key factor. The last Roman emperor was deposed not after a dramatic battle but when he couldn't pay his troops.
This is an excellent book. This guy can write, so it's a quick and entertaining read. He marshals his evidence quickly and convincingly, and the dominant image he leaves — of our civilization facing a crisis similar to that which faced other ancient civilizations — is one that simply cannot be dismissed.
His prevailing image is that of "progress traps" such as befell Mesopotamia and the Maya. The wrecks of our failed experiments in civilization lie scattered in deserts and jungles like crashed airliners; if we can recover the "flight recorders" we can tell what went wrong and avoid it. He also cites relatively stable civilizations such as those in Egypt and China. "The greatest wonder of the ancient world is how recent it all is. No city or monument is much more than 5,000 years old" (p. 55).
The main examples he relies on are Sumeria, Rome, the Maya, and Easter Island. He distinguishes between true collapses and political upheavals like the French and Russian revolutions — the exhaustion of social, rather than natural, capital. When nature starts to foreclose, the social contract breaks down. "Such a civilization is therefore most unstable at its peak, when it has reached maximum demand on the ecology. Unless a new source of wealth or energy appears, it has no room left to raise production or absorb the shock of natural fluctuations. The only way onward is to keep wringing new loans from nature and humanity" (p. 84).
I’m not sure of all of his details. He says that "Rome’s ancient breadbaskets are filled with sand and dust" (p. 94). It’s true that much of North Africa has been turned to desert in the past 3000 years, but my impression was that this was due to Arab herdsmen and pastoralists who came in after the fall of Rome. There is probably some truth to the idea that Rome was weakened already through environmental damage, and perhaps Joseph Tainter underestimates the impact of the environment on Rome’s fall, but I’d like a little more detail on this point before concluding that the fall of Rome as due primarily to environmental causes. Tainter makes a good case that inflation of Rome's currency was a key factor. The last Roman emperor was deposed not after a dramatic battle but when he couldn't pay his troops.
This is an excellent book. This guy can write, so it's a quick and entertaining read. He marshals his evidence quickly and convincingly, and the dominant image he leaves — of our civilization facing a crisis similar to that which faced other ancient civilizations — is one that simply cannot be dismissed.
August 28, 2020
Very light reading.
I understand that the book is based off the Massey lecture, but nonetheless, the book is dangerously close to being too light of reading for the subject matter.
In the book Wright attempts to describe the history of how "our" civilization reached its current state and the dangers inherent in the situation. By briefly and selectively reviewing and summarizing the rise and fall of other civilizations he attempts to highlight three possible weaknesses which precipitate the collapse (sometimes sudden) of empires.
He details the histories of four civilizations which collapsed (Sumer, Rome, Maya and Easter Island) and two which have managed some level of continuity (Egypt and China). His analysis is quite selective and simplistic but it helps further his agenda regarding our own civilizational perile: we will collapse in one of three ways. He borrows these three ways from Joseph Tainter: the Runaway Train, House of Cards, and Dinosaur (p.107).
The runaway train refers mostly to overexpansion, either in the Malthusian sense or in the industrialization sense. Either way, a civilization depletes its environment to the point of sudden collapse.
Similarly, the House of Cards refers to a civilization which builds itself up on a weak foundation and quickly collapses when there is a minor shift (environment, disease, migration, war).
Thirdly, the Dinosaur is a civilization too conservative to adapted to the new changing situation and lumbers on only to die and be replaced by more dynamic civilizations.
This is the best part of the book but he goes on to classic Marxist conclusions: his naivety towards the rise of Islam as an alternative to western democracie is dated and familiar "terrorism is a small threat compared with hunger, disease, or climate change...Violence is bread by injustice, poverty, inequality..." (p.126)
His Marxist interpretation of history blinds him to the ideological roots of various civilizations and their collapses, or to him the only ideology which poses a threat is conservativism. Most of history is explained away by material problems and he dismisses the ideological underpinings of the aforementioned civilizations, the first and second world wars, terrorism.
Additionally obnoxious is his Pocahontas interpretation of pre-Columbus life in the Americas. It is clear that this was sponsored by the CBC because only the CBC could idolize the state of constant tribal warfare, poverty, slavery and subsistence living which characterized indigenous "civilization".
I understand that the book is based off the Massey lecture, but nonetheless, the book is dangerously close to being too light of reading for the subject matter.
In the book Wright attempts to describe the history of how "our" civilization reached its current state and the dangers inherent in the situation. By briefly and selectively reviewing and summarizing the rise and fall of other civilizations he attempts to highlight three possible weaknesses which precipitate the collapse (sometimes sudden) of empires.
He details the histories of four civilizations which collapsed (Sumer, Rome, Maya and Easter Island) and two which have managed some level of continuity (Egypt and China). His analysis is quite selective and simplistic but it helps further his agenda regarding our own civilizational perile: we will collapse in one of three ways. He borrows these three ways from Joseph Tainter: the Runaway Train, House of Cards, and Dinosaur (p.107).
The runaway train refers mostly to overexpansion, either in the Malthusian sense or in the industrialization sense. Either way, a civilization depletes its environment to the point of sudden collapse.
Similarly, the House of Cards refers to a civilization which builds itself up on a weak foundation and quickly collapses when there is a minor shift (environment, disease, migration, war).
Thirdly, the Dinosaur is a civilization too conservative to adapted to the new changing situation and lumbers on only to die and be replaced by more dynamic civilizations.
This is the best part of the book but he goes on to classic Marxist conclusions: his naivety towards the rise of Islam as an alternative to western democracie is dated and familiar "terrorism is a small threat compared with hunger, disease, or climate change...Violence is bread by injustice, poverty, inequality..." (p.126)
His Marxist interpretation of history blinds him to the ideological roots of various civilizations and their collapses, or to him the only ideology which poses a threat is conservativism. Most of history is explained away by material problems and he dismisses the ideological underpinings of the aforementioned civilizations, the first and second world wars, terrorism.
Additionally obnoxious is his Pocahontas interpretation of pre-Columbus life in the Americas. It is clear that this was sponsored by the CBC because only the CBC could idolize the state of constant tribal warfare, poverty, slavery and subsistence living which characterized indigenous "civilization".
January 17, 2022
?lerlemenin K?sa Tarihi'nin yan?t arad??? sorular; Nereden geliyoruz? Neyiz? Nereye Gidiyoruz?. Yan?tlar? ararken izledi?i yol, insanl?k tarihinin ge?mi? medeniyet deneyimleri. Paskalya Adalar?, Sümerler, M?s?rl?lar, Mayalar, Romal?lar, ?inliler, M?s?rl?lar ve di?erleri. Ne yapt?lar da bu medeniyetler son buldu? ??kü?lerin ortak y?nleri nelerdi : Kontrolden ??km?? Tren, Dinazor ve ?skambilden kule. Peki ya ?imdi, nereye gidiyoruz? Medeniyetimizin bulundu?u noktada bunlar?n tümünden fazlas?yla var.
SAYFA 9
?lerleme miti kimi zaman bize (ama en iyi masalarda oturanlar?m?za) iyi hizmet etti, bunu sürdürebilir de. Ne var ki bu kitapta bu mitin ayn? zamanda tehlikeli bir hal ald???n? savunaca??m. ?lerlemenin, akl?n ?tesine ge?ip felakete g?türen bir i? mant??? vard?r. Ba?tan ??kar?c? bir ba?ar?lar zinciri bir tuzakla son bulabilir.
SAYFA 12
Dünyay? y?kacak kadar gü?lü bir ilerleme ger?ekten modern olsa da yararlar? tuza?a d?nü?türen ?l?ek ?eytan? Ta? Devri'nden beri bizimle. Bu ?eytan bizim i?imizde yat?yor ve ne zaman do?aya do?ru yürüyü?e ge?sek ba??n? ??kart?veriyor, ak?ll?l?k ile dü?üncesizlik, ihtiya? ile a?g?zlülük aras?ndaki dengeyi bozuveriyor.
Bir yerine iki mamut ?ldürmeyi ??renen paleolitik d?nem avc?lar? ilerleme kaydetmi?lerdi. 200 mamut birden ?ldürmeyi ??renenlerse (bir sürüyü bir yardan a?a?? do?ru sürenler) fazla ileriye gitmi?lerdi. Bir süre bolluk i?inde ya?ad?ktan sonra, a?l?ktan ?lüp gittiler.
SAYFA 35
Bugüne kadar o kadar fazla türün son bulmas?na yol a?t?k ki, dünya üzerindeki egemenli?imiz fosil kay?tlar?nda bir asteroidin Dünya’ya ?arpmas? sonucuymu? gibi g?rünecek.
SAYFA 35
Kendilerine rakip insan gruplar?n? tekrar tekrar ortadan kald?rm?? insanlar?n soyundan geliyor olabiliriz pek?l?, bu eylemlerin zirve noktas? 30.000 y?l ?nce Neandertal kuzenlerimizin ?aibeli bir bi?imde ortadan kalkmas?yd?.
SAYFA 37
Antik devirlerden bugüne var?ncaya kadar medeni insanlar kendilerinin yayg?n tabirle vah?ilerden daha ?y? davrand?klar?na, daha iyi olduklar?na inanm??lard?r. Ama medeniyete ili?tirilen ahlaki de?erler yan?lt?c?d?r: Genellikle daha gü?süz ba?ka toplumlara sald?rmay?, onlara h?kim olmay? hakl? ??karmakta kullan?lm??lard?r. ?mparatorluklar?n?n g?rkemli oldu?u günlerde Frans?zlar?n bir "medenile?tirme misyonu” vard?, ?ngilizler "beyaz adam?n yükü”nü ta??yordu, otomatik silahlar bu yükü ta??malar?n? kolayla?t?r?yordu. Bugünlerde Washington "medeni dünya”n?n ba??n? ?ekti?ini, onu korudu?unu ileri sürüyor, Amerikan retori?inde o ülkenin ilk sakinlerinin k?klerinden s?külüp imha edilmesiyle ba?lam?? bir gelenek bu.
??te ikimiz insanl???n son binde birlik diliminde ya?ad?, bunlar?n da be?te ya da alt?da biri ?imdi ya??yor.
SAYFA 41
Eski Ta? ?a??'n?n bitimiyle ge?en be? yüz y?l i?inde Bat?'n?n "ke?ifleri” ve fetihleri aras?nda bir benzerlik oldu?unu s?yleyebiliriz. 1492'den bu yana bir tek medeniyet (Avrupa medeniyeti) di?er bütün medeniyetleri ortadan kald?r?p yerinden etmi?, bu süre?te ?i?kinle?mi? ve kendisini endüstriyel bir gü? haline getirmi?tir. ?st Paleolitik ?a?'da bir tek insan türü ?o?alm?? ve tüm dünyaya yay?lm??, ba?ka bütün insan ?e?itlerini ?ldürmü?, yerinden etmi? ya da kendi i?ine katm??, o zamanlar insan eli de?memi? yeni dünyalara girmi?tir.
15.000 y?l ?ncesine gelindi?inde insano?lu Antarktika d???nda bütün k?talarda yerle?iklik kazanm??t?. Avrupa'n?n dünya ?ap?nda yay?lmas? gibi tarih ?ncesi bu ke?if ve g?? dalgas?n?n ?ok k?klü ekolojik sonu?lar? oldu, büyük av hayvanlar? ortadan kaybolmaya ba?lad?. Mamutlar ve tüylü gergedanlar kuzeye ?ekildiler, sonra da Avrupa'dan ve Asya'dan silinip gittiler. Avustralya'da devasa bir kanguru, ba?ka keseliler, bir Volkswagen kadar büyük bir kaplumba?a kayboldu. Amerika k?talar?nda develer, mamut, devasa bizon, devasa tembel hayvan, at silinip gitti.
SAYFA 44
Bat? Avrupa'n?n arkeolojisi Paleolitik ?a?'?n son bin y?l?nda Cro Magnonlar?n ?a?aal? hayat tarzlar?n?n s?nmekte oldu?unu g?stermektedir. Ma?ara resimlerinde kesintiler olur, sonra bu resimler son bulur. Heykeller ve oymalar azal?r. ?akmak ta?? b??aklar giderek kü?ülür, kü?ülür. Mamut ?ldürmek yerine tav?anlar? ni?an alm??lard?r.
Eski Ta? ?a??'n?n sonundaki avc?lar kesinlikle hantal de?illerdi, ama k?tülerdi ?ünkü sa?duyulu bir asala??n uymas? gereken kural? ?i?nemi?lerdi: Ev sahibini ?ldürme. Türleri pe? pe?e tükeni?e sürüklerlerken ilk ilerleme tuza??na ad?m atm??lard?.
Onlar?n soylar?ndan gelenlerin baz?lar? (yak?n d?neme kadar varl?klar?n? sürdüren avc?-toplay?c? toplumlar) a??r darbelerin okulunda kendilerini k?s?tlamay? ??reneceklerdi. Ama geri kalanlar?m?z bahisleri yükseltmenin yeni bir yolunu buldu: Geriye d?nüp bakt???m?zda ?ift?ilik ya da Neolitik "Devrim” diye bilinen ?eyi.
SAYFA 55
1500'lerin ba??nda, 15.000 y?l? a?k?n bir süredir yal?t?lm?? olarak varl?klar?n? sürdüren iki kültürel deney nihayet kar?? kar??ya gelmi?ti. ?lgin?tir, onca zaman sonra, ikisi de birbirlerinin kurumlar?n? g?rüp tan?yabilmi?ti. Cortes Meksika'da karaya ??kt???nda yollar, kanallar, kentler, saraylar, okullar, mahkemeler, pazarlar, sulama tesisati, krallar, rahipler, tap?naklar, k?ylüler, zanaatk?rlar, ordular, g?kbilimciler, tüccarlar, spor, tiyatro, resim, müzik ve kitaplar g?rmü?tü. Yüksek medeniyet ayr?nt?larda farkl?, ama ?zde benzer bir bi?imde birbirinden ba??ms?z olarak dünyan?n her iki taraf?nda da geli?mi?ti. S?nay?c? bir vaka olarak Amerika ?rne?i, bizlerin ?ng?rülebilir yarat?klar oldu?unu, her yerde ayn? ihtiya?lar?n, ihtiraslar?n, umutlar?n, ??lg?nl?klar?n güdümünde oldu?umuzu dü?ündürüyor.
SAYFA 59
Kadim dünyan?n en hayret verici y?nü, her ?eyin ne kadar da k?sa süre ?nce ger?ekle?mi? olmas?d?r. Medeniyetin ba?lang?c?ndan bugüne yaln?zca, yetmi? y?ll?k yetmi? ?mür ya?anm??t?r. Medeniyetin tamam?, ilk atam?z?n bir ta?? bilemesinden bu yana ge?en iki bu?uk milyon y?l?n yaln?zca yüzde 0,2'sini kapsar.
SAYFA 62
1722’de Hollandal?lar bilinmeyen bir ada buldular, Amsterdam’daki evler kadar yüksek ta? heykellerin oldu?u bu adada Kaptan Hook, yak?t olabilecek odun, gemiye almaya de?ecek temiz su bulunmad???ndan adan?n peri?an bir halde oldu?unu vurgular. “Do?a nimetlerini da??t?rken buraya son derece cimri davranm??” sonucuna varm??t?.
MS5.yy’da Polinezya’ya g??menler yerle?mi?ti, büyük katamaranlar?nda tah?llar?, hayvanlar?yla gelmi?lerdi. 166 km2’de 5-6yy i?inde nüfus 10.000’e ??kt?. K?yler kurdular, tar?m yapt?lar. Her klan kendi atas? an?s?na etkileyici ta? heykeller dikmeye ba?lad?. Zamanla heykel kültü rekabet?i ve g?steri??i bir hal ald?. Daha fazla kereste, halat, insan gücü gerekiyordu. A?a?lar büyüyebildi?inden daha h?zl? kesiliyordu, MS1400’de ormanlar mahvedilmi?ti. Son a?ac? devirenler, onun son a?a? oldu?unu g?rüyorlard?, ba?ka bir a?a? olmad???n? kesinkes biliyorlard?. Yine de o a?ac? devirdiler.
Eski kalaslar ve kurtlar?n kemirdi?i gemi enkazlar? yüzünden sava?lar patlak verdi. ?nsanlar bütün k?peklerini, yuva yapan ku?lar?n?n hemen hepsini yediler, adan?n dayan?lmaz sessizli?i hayvanlar?n seslerinin kesilmesiyle daha bir derinle?ti. Geride topraklar? oburca yiyip yutan ta? devlerden, moai'den ba?ka bir ?ey kalmam??t?. Ve bu ta? devler h?l?, insanlar inan?lar?n? korur, onlar? say?lar?n? art?rarak ?ereflendirirlerse bereketin geri d?nece?ini vaat ediyordu.
Sonunda bini a?k?n moai vard?, en parlak günlerindeki nüfuslar?yla her on ki?iye bir heykel dü?üyordu. Ama güzel günler art?k geride kalm??t?, sonu gelmez rüzg?rlar?n sürükledi?i, sellerle denize ak?p giden güzel topraklarla birlikte onlar da gitmi?lerdi. Ada halk? bir delilik halini alan, baz? antropologlar?n "ideolojik bir patoloji” dedi?i bir tür ilerlemeyle ba?tan ??km??lard?. Avrupal?lar on sekizinci yüzy?lda adaya ula?t?klar?nda en k?tü günler geride kalm??t?; heykel ba??na bir ya da iki insanla kar??la?m??lard?, üzüntü verici bir kal?nt?yd? bu, Kaptan Cook'un s?zleriyle "kü?ük, ?elimsiz, sak?ngan ve sefil” bir kal?nt?.
SAYFA 68
Bana en ?a??rt?c? gelen, dünyan?n her yerinde, farkl? kültürler ve ekolojilerde ?al???yor olsalar bile insanlar?n ?ok benzer ?eyleri birbirlerinden ba??ms?z olarak ger?ekle?tirmelerinin ne kadar az zaman ald???. 3000 y?l ?ncesine gelindi?inde en az yedi yerde medeniyet do?mu?tu: Mezopotamya, M?s?r, Akdeniz, Hindistan, ?in, Meksika ve Peru. Bunlar?n yar?s?, dünyada ayn? ?eylerle u?ra?an ba?ka biri olabilece?inden ?üphelenmeksizin kendilerini s?f?rdan ba?layarak kurmu?lard?r.
SAYFA 70
?atalh?yükteki kan?tlar M? 6000’e gelindi?inde ormans?zla?man?n ve erozyonun yayg?nla?t???n? g?steriyor. ??kar?lan yang?nlar, ke?ilerin a??r? otlanmas?, al?? i?in kire? yak?lmas? ormanl?k arazileri mahvetmi? ve yar? ??l haline getirmi? olabilir, M? 5500’lerde bir?ok yerle?im yeri terk edilmi?ti.
edilmi?ti. Paskalya Adas?'nda oldu?u gibi insanlar yuvalar?n? kirletmi?lerdi. Ama Paskalya Adas? halk?n?n tersine bu insanlar?n g??üp yeni ba?tan ba?layacaklar? yerler vard?.
Cennet Bah?esi'nden kendi kendilerini sürüp ??karan bu insanlar Dicle ve F?rat nehrinin aras?ndaki büyük düzlüklerin a?a?? k?sm?nda ikinci bir cennet buldular: Mezopotamya ya da Irak denilen topraklar, kadim ?ehirlerin kal?nt?lan: Babil, Uruk, Kaldelerin Ur'u, ?brahim'in do?um yeri.
M? be?inci ve d?rdüncü bin y?llarda güney Irak bal?klarla, bir evden daha uzun sazlarla dolu kanallar?n ve hurma a?a?lan bak?m?ndan zengin kum ?bekleriyle dolu batakl?k bir deltayd?. Kam?? sazl?klar?nda yaban domuzlar?, su ku?lar? ya?arumuslu toprak, sürüldü?ünde bire yüz veriyordu, ?ünkü buras? yeni toprakt?.
SAYFA 81
Sir Leonard Woolley iki dünya sava?? aras?ndaki d?nemde Sümer'de kaz? yapt???nda ?unlar? yazm??t?: "Mezopotamya ??lünü g?rmü? olanlara... kadim dünya neredeyse inan?lmazm?? gibi g?rünür, ge?mi? ile ?imdi aras?ndaki tezat o kadar belirgindir ki... Ur bir imparatorlu?un ba?kentiyse, Sümer bir zamanlar geni? bir tah?l ambar?ysa nüfus neden hi?e inmi?, toprak neden meziyetlerini yitirmi?tir? Woolley'nin sorusunun tek kelimelik bir cevab? vard?r: Tuz. Nehirler kayalardan ve topraktan tuz al?r, denize ta??rlar. Ama insanlar suyu ekilmi? topra?a y?nlendirdiklerinde suyun büyük b?lümü buharla??r ve geride tuz kal?r. Sulama, tuzlu yeralt? sular?n?n yüzeye s?zmas?na yol a?arak sular?n ta?mas?na da neden olur.
Birka? yüzy?l süren bereketli hasatlar?n ard?ndan toprak filizlerine s?rt ?evirmeye ba?lad?. Felaketin ilk i?areti bu?day hasad?nda bir gerileme g?rülmesiydi… Zaman ge?tik?e Sümerler bu?day?n yerine, tuzu daha fazla tolere edebilen arpa ekmek zorunda kald?lar. M? 2500'e gelindi?inde bu?day ekinin yaln?zca yüzde 15'ini olu?turuyordu, M? 2100'e gelindi?inde Ur bu?day? hepten b?rakm??t?.
SAYFA 83
M? 2000'de vakanüvisler dünyan?n "beyaza d?ndü?ü"nü yaz?yorlard?. Arpa dahil hi?bir ürün tutmuyordu. Hasat normaide oldu?unun ü?te birine dü?mü?tü. Sümerlerin tarihteki güne?li bir y?l? sona ermi?ti. Siyasal iktidar kuzeye Babil ve Asur'a, ?ok daha sonra ?slam d?neminde de Ba?dat'a kayd?. Kuzey Mezopotamya'da kanalizasyon sistemi güneyde oldu?undan daha iyiydi, ama orada bile ayn? bozulma d?ngüsü, bir imparatorluktan di?erine modern zamanlara dek tekrarlanacakt?. Bugün Irak'ta sulanan topraklar?n yar?s? tamamen tuzludur, bu dünyadaki en yüksek orand?r, onu nehir k?y?s?nda kurulmu? di?er iki medeniyet merkezi M?s?r ve Pakistan izler.
SAYFA 87
Paskalya Adas? halk? ve Sümerler ?evrelerini o kadar enkaza ?evirmi?lerdi, o kadar ?iddetli bir dü?ü? ya?am??lard? ki tamamen tükenip gittiler. Ama Roma ve Maya medeniyetleri ??kü?lerinden sonra sadele?mi? "orta?a?” bi?imlerinde ya?amaya devam ettiler, arkalar?nda do?rudan onlar?n soylar?ndan gelen, bugün ya?ad???m?z dünyan?n par?as? olan insanlar b?rakt?lar. Roma'n?n v?risleri Bizans ?mparatorlu?u ve modern Latin diyalektleri konu?an Avrupa uluslar?d?r. Mayalar imparatorluk kurmam??lard?, ula?m?? olabilecekleri bir r?nesans da on alt?nc? yüzy?ldaki ?spanyol i?galiyle engellenmi?ti. Ne var ki Maya kültürünün ?lümü abart?lm??t?r. Bugün sekiz milyon insan Maya dillerini konu?ur, bu rakam kabaca Maya'n?n klasik d?nemindeki rakama e?ittir; bu insanlar?n bir?o?u da ay?rt edici bi?imde Maya'ya ?zgü toplumsal ?rgütlenme, inan?, sanat ve takvimsel astroloji uygulamalar?n? benimsemi?lerdir.
Sümer'in sonraki medeniyetler üzerinde büyük etkileri olmas?na ra?men Sümer etnik kimli?i silinip gitmi?tir. Sümer dili Babilli ?limlerin sayg? duydu?u, ya?ayan hi?bir akrabas? olmayan ?lü bir dil olarak hayat?na devam etmi?tir. Oysa bunun tersine anadili Maya dili olanlar Colomb ?ncesi metinlerin ??zülmesinde rol oynam??lar, Maya takvimi rahipleri, yani "gün sayanlar” takvimin baz? k?s?mlar?n? kadim devirlerden bu yana canl? tutmu?lard?r.
SAYFA 108
Burada kar??m?za bir muamma ??kar: Medeniyetler kendi kendilerini bu kadar s?k mahvediyorlarsa, bir bütün olarak medeniyet deneyi bu kadar iyi ger?ekle?tiriliyor? Roma uzun vadede kendi kendisini besleyemediyse, Roma devrinde dünya üzerindeki her insana kar??l?k bugün otuz insan bulunmas? nas?l mümkün olmu?tur?
Bu sorular? k?smen, do?an?n kendi kendisini yenilemesi ve insanlar?n g?? etmesiyle cevaplayabiliriz. Kadim medeniyetler yereldi, belli ekolojiler üzerinden ge?iniyorlard?. Biri dü?erken, ba?ka bir yerde bir di?eri yükseliyordu. Gezegenimizin geni? k?s?mlar?nda yerle?im h?l? azd?r. Dünyan?n tarihi uzaydan h?zl? bir film olarak ?ekilebilseydi, medeniyetlerin orman yang?nlar? gibi, ?nce bir b?lgede sonra bir di?erinde patlak verdi?ini g?rürdük.
SAYFA 9
?lerleme miti kimi zaman bize (ama en iyi masalarda oturanlar?m?za) iyi hizmet etti, bunu sürdürebilir de. Ne var ki bu kitapta bu mitin ayn? zamanda tehlikeli bir hal ald???n? savunaca??m. ?lerlemenin, akl?n ?tesine ge?ip felakete g?türen bir i? mant??? vard?r. Ba?tan ??kar?c? bir ba?ar?lar zinciri bir tuzakla son bulabilir.
SAYFA 12
Dünyay? y?kacak kadar gü?lü bir ilerleme ger?ekten modern olsa da yararlar? tuza?a d?nü?türen ?l?ek ?eytan? Ta? Devri'nden beri bizimle. Bu ?eytan bizim i?imizde yat?yor ve ne zaman do?aya do?ru yürüyü?e ge?sek ba??n? ??kart?veriyor, ak?ll?l?k ile dü?üncesizlik, ihtiya? ile a?g?zlülük aras?ndaki dengeyi bozuveriyor.
Bir yerine iki mamut ?ldürmeyi ??renen paleolitik d?nem avc?lar? ilerleme kaydetmi?lerdi. 200 mamut birden ?ldürmeyi ??renenlerse (bir sürüyü bir yardan a?a?? do?ru sürenler) fazla ileriye gitmi?lerdi. Bir süre bolluk i?inde ya?ad?ktan sonra, a?l?ktan ?lüp gittiler.
SAYFA 35
Bugüne kadar o kadar fazla türün son bulmas?na yol a?t?k ki, dünya üzerindeki egemenli?imiz fosil kay?tlar?nda bir asteroidin Dünya’ya ?arpmas? sonucuymu? gibi g?rünecek.
SAYFA 35
Kendilerine rakip insan gruplar?n? tekrar tekrar ortadan kald?rm?? insanlar?n soyundan geliyor olabiliriz pek?l?, bu eylemlerin zirve noktas? 30.000 y?l ?nce Neandertal kuzenlerimizin ?aibeli bir bi?imde ortadan kalkmas?yd?.
SAYFA 37
Antik devirlerden bugüne var?ncaya kadar medeni insanlar kendilerinin yayg?n tabirle vah?ilerden daha ?y? davrand?klar?na, daha iyi olduklar?na inanm??lard?r. Ama medeniyete ili?tirilen ahlaki de?erler yan?lt?c?d?r: Genellikle daha gü?süz ba?ka toplumlara sald?rmay?, onlara h?kim olmay? hakl? ??karmakta kullan?lm??lard?r. ?mparatorluklar?n?n g?rkemli oldu?u günlerde Frans?zlar?n bir "medenile?tirme misyonu” vard?, ?ngilizler "beyaz adam?n yükü”nü ta??yordu, otomatik silahlar bu yükü ta??malar?n? kolayla?t?r?yordu. Bugünlerde Washington "medeni dünya”n?n ba??n? ?ekti?ini, onu korudu?unu ileri sürüyor, Amerikan retori?inde o ülkenin ilk sakinlerinin k?klerinden s?külüp imha edilmesiyle ba?lam?? bir gelenek bu.
??te ikimiz insanl???n son binde birlik diliminde ya?ad?, bunlar?n da be?te ya da alt?da biri ?imdi ya??yor.
SAYFA 41
Eski Ta? ?a??'n?n bitimiyle ge?en be? yüz y?l i?inde Bat?'n?n "ke?ifleri” ve fetihleri aras?nda bir benzerlik oldu?unu s?yleyebiliriz. 1492'den bu yana bir tek medeniyet (Avrupa medeniyeti) di?er bütün medeniyetleri ortadan kald?r?p yerinden etmi?, bu süre?te ?i?kinle?mi? ve kendisini endüstriyel bir gü? haline getirmi?tir. ?st Paleolitik ?a?'da bir tek insan türü ?o?alm?? ve tüm dünyaya yay?lm??, ba?ka bütün insan ?e?itlerini ?ldürmü?, yerinden etmi? ya da kendi i?ine katm??, o zamanlar insan eli de?memi? yeni dünyalara girmi?tir.
15.000 y?l ?ncesine gelindi?inde insano?lu Antarktika d???nda bütün k?talarda yerle?iklik kazanm??t?. Avrupa'n?n dünya ?ap?nda yay?lmas? gibi tarih ?ncesi bu ke?if ve g?? dalgas?n?n ?ok k?klü ekolojik sonu?lar? oldu, büyük av hayvanlar? ortadan kaybolmaya ba?lad?. Mamutlar ve tüylü gergedanlar kuzeye ?ekildiler, sonra da Avrupa'dan ve Asya'dan silinip gittiler. Avustralya'da devasa bir kanguru, ba?ka keseliler, bir Volkswagen kadar büyük bir kaplumba?a kayboldu. Amerika k?talar?nda develer, mamut, devasa bizon, devasa tembel hayvan, at silinip gitti.
SAYFA 44
Bat? Avrupa'n?n arkeolojisi Paleolitik ?a?'?n son bin y?l?nda Cro Magnonlar?n ?a?aal? hayat tarzlar?n?n s?nmekte oldu?unu g?stermektedir. Ma?ara resimlerinde kesintiler olur, sonra bu resimler son bulur. Heykeller ve oymalar azal?r. ?akmak ta?? b??aklar giderek kü?ülür, kü?ülür. Mamut ?ldürmek yerine tav?anlar? ni?an alm??lard?r.
Eski Ta? ?a??'n?n sonundaki avc?lar kesinlikle hantal de?illerdi, ama k?tülerdi ?ünkü sa?duyulu bir asala??n uymas? gereken kural? ?i?nemi?lerdi: Ev sahibini ?ldürme. Türleri pe? pe?e tükeni?e sürüklerlerken ilk ilerleme tuza??na ad?m atm??lard?.
Onlar?n soylar?ndan gelenlerin baz?lar? (yak?n d?neme kadar varl?klar?n? sürdüren avc?-toplay?c? toplumlar) a??r darbelerin okulunda kendilerini k?s?tlamay? ??reneceklerdi. Ama geri kalanlar?m?z bahisleri yükseltmenin yeni bir yolunu buldu: Geriye d?nüp bakt???m?zda ?ift?ilik ya da Neolitik "Devrim” diye bilinen ?eyi.
SAYFA 55
1500'lerin ba??nda, 15.000 y?l? a?k?n bir süredir yal?t?lm?? olarak varl?klar?n? sürdüren iki kültürel deney nihayet kar?? kar??ya gelmi?ti. ?lgin?tir, onca zaman sonra, ikisi de birbirlerinin kurumlar?n? g?rüp tan?yabilmi?ti. Cortes Meksika'da karaya ??kt???nda yollar, kanallar, kentler, saraylar, okullar, mahkemeler, pazarlar, sulama tesisati, krallar, rahipler, tap?naklar, k?ylüler, zanaatk?rlar, ordular, g?kbilimciler, tüccarlar, spor, tiyatro, resim, müzik ve kitaplar g?rmü?tü. Yüksek medeniyet ayr?nt?larda farkl?, ama ?zde benzer bir bi?imde birbirinden ba??ms?z olarak dünyan?n her iki taraf?nda da geli?mi?ti. S?nay?c? bir vaka olarak Amerika ?rne?i, bizlerin ?ng?rülebilir yarat?klar oldu?unu, her yerde ayn? ihtiya?lar?n, ihtiraslar?n, umutlar?n, ??lg?nl?klar?n güdümünde oldu?umuzu dü?ündürüyor.
SAYFA 59
Kadim dünyan?n en hayret verici y?nü, her ?eyin ne kadar da k?sa süre ?nce ger?ekle?mi? olmas?d?r. Medeniyetin ba?lang?c?ndan bugüne yaln?zca, yetmi? y?ll?k yetmi? ?mür ya?anm??t?r. Medeniyetin tamam?, ilk atam?z?n bir ta?? bilemesinden bu yana ge?en iki bu?uk milyon y?l?n yaln?zca yüzde 0,2'sini kapsar.
SAYFA 62
1722’de Hollandal?lar bilinmeyen bir ada buldular, Amsterdam’daki evler kadar yüksek ta? heykellerin oldu?u bu adada Kaptan Hook, yak?t olabilecek odun, gemiye almaya de?ecek temiz su bulunmad???ndan adan?n peri?an bir halde oldu?unu vurgular. “Do?a nimetlerini da??t?rken buraya son derece cimri davranm??” sonucuna varm??t?.
MS5.yy’da Polinezya’ya g??menler yerle?mi?ti, büyük katamaranlar?nda tah?llar?, hayvanlar?yla gelmi?lerdi. 166 km2’de 5-6yy i?inde nüfus 10.000’e ??kt?. K?yler kurdular, tar?m yapt?lar. Her klan kendi atas? an?s?na etkileyici ta? heykeller dikmeye ba?lad?. Zamanla heykel kültü rekabet?i ve g?steri??i bir hal ald?. Daha fazla kereste, halat, insan gücü gerekiyordu. A?a?lar büyüyebildi?inden daha h?zl? kesiliyordu, MS1400’de ormanlar mahvedilmi?ti. Son a?ac? devirenler, onun son a?a? oldu?unu g?rüyorlard?, ba?ka bir a?a? olmad???n? kesinkes biliyorlard?. Yine de o a?ac? devirdiler.
Eski kalaslar ve kurtlar?n kemirdi?i gemi enkazlar? yüzünden sava?lar patlak verdi. ?nsanlar bütün k?peklerini, yuva yapan ku?lar?n?n hemen hepsini yediler, adan?n dayan?lmaz sessizli?i hayvanlar?n seslerinin kesilmesiyle daha bir derinle?ti. Geride topraklar? oburca yiyip yutan ta? devlerden, moai'den ba?ka bir ?ey kalmam??t?. Ve bu ta? devler h?l?, insanlar inan?lar?n? korur, onlar? say?lar?n? art?rarak ?ereflendirirlerse bereketin geri d?nece?ini vaat ediyordu.
Sonunda bini a?k?n moai vard?, en parlak günlerindeki nüfuslar?yla her on ki?iye bir heykel dü?üyordu. Ama güzel günler art?k geride kalm??t?, sonu gelmez rüzg?rlar?n sürükledi?i, sellerle denize ak?p giden güzel topraklarla birlikte onlar da gitmi?lerdi. Ada halk? bir delilik halini alan, baz? antropologlar?n "ideolojik bir patoloji” dedi?i bir tür ilerlemeyle ba?tan ??km??lard?. Avrupal?lar on sekizinci yüzy?lda adaya ula?t?klar?nda en k?tü günler geride kalm??t?; heykel ba??na bir ya da iki insanla kar??la?m??lard?, üzüntü verici bir kal?nt?yd? bu, Kaptan Cook'un s?zleriyle "kü?ük, ?elimsiz, sak?ngan ve sefil” bir kal?nt?.
SAYFA 68
Bana en ?a??rt?c? gelen, dünyan?n her yerinde, farkl? kültürler ve ekolojilerde ?al???yor olsalar bile insanlar?n ?ok benzer ?eyleri birbirlerinden ba??ms?z olarak ger?ekle?tirmelerinin ne kadar az zaman ald???. 3000 y?l ?ncesine gelindi?inde en az yedi yerde medeniyet do?mu?tu: Mezopotamya, M?s?r, Akdeniz, Hindistan, ?in, Meksika ve Peru. Bunlar?n yar?s?, dünyada ayn? ?eylerle u?ra?an ba?ka biri olabilece?inden ?üphelenmeksizin kendilerini s?f?rdan ba?layarak kurmu?lard?r.
SAYFA 70
?atalh?yükteki kan?tlar M? 6000’e gelindi?inde ormans?zla?man?n ve erozyonun yayg?nla?t???n? g?steriyor. ??kar?lan yang?nlar, ke?ilerin a??r? otlanmas?, al?? i?in kire? yak?lmas? ormanl?k arazileri mahvetmi? ve yar? ??l haline getirmi? olabilir, M? 5500’lerde bir?ok yerle?im yeri terk edilmi?ti.
edilmi?ti. Paskalya Adas?'nda oldu?u gibi insanlar yuvalar?n? kirletmi?lerdi. Ama Paskalya Adas? halk?n?n tersine bu insanlar?n g??üp yeni ba?tan ba?layacaklar? yerler vard?.
Cennet Bah?esi'nden kendi kendilerini sürüp ??karan bu insanlar Dicle ve F?rat nehrinin aras?ndaki büyük düzlüklerin a?a?? k?sm?nda ikinci bir cennet buldular: Mezopotamya ya da Irak denilen topraklar, kadim ?ehirlerin kal?nt?lan: Babil, Uruk, Kaldelerin Ur'u, ?brahim'in do?um yeri.
M? be?inci ve d?rdüncü bin y?llarda güney Irak bal?klarla, bir evden daha uzun sazlarla dolu kanallar?n ve hurma a?a?lan bak?m?ndan zengin kum ?bekleriyle dolu batakl?k bir deltayd?. Kam?? sazl?klar?nda yaban domuzlar?, su ku?lar? ya?arumuslu toprak, sürüldü?ünde bire yüz veriyordu, ?ünkü buras? yeni toprakt?.
SAYFA 81
Sir Leonard Woolley iki dünya sava?? aras?ndaki d?nemde Sümer'de kaz? yapt???nda ?unlar? yazm??t?: "Mezopotamya ??lünü g?rmü? olanlara... kadim dünya neredeyse inan?lmazm?? gibi g?rünür, ge?mi? ile ?imdi aras?ndaki tezat o kadar belirgindir ki... Ur bir imparatorlu?un ba?kentiyse, Sümer bir zamanlar geni? bir tah?l ambar?ysa nüfus neden hi?e inmi?, toprak neden meziyetlerini yitirmi?tir? Woolley'nin sorusunun tek kelimelik bir cevab? vard?r: Tuz. Nehirler kayalardan ve topraktan tuz al?r, denize ta??rlar. Ama insanlar suyu ekilmi? topra?a y?nlendirdiklerinde suyun büyük b?lümü buharla??r ve geride tuz kal?r. Sulama, tuzlu yeralt? sular?n?n yüzeye s?zmas?na yol a?arak sular?n ta?mas?na da neden olur.
Birka? yüzy?l süren bereketli hasatlar?n ard?ndan toprak filizlerine s?rt ?evirmeye ba?lad?. Felaketin ilk i?areti bu?day hasad?nda bir gerileme g?rülmesiydi… Zaman ge?tik?e Sümerler bu?day?n yerine, tuzu daha fazla tolere edebilen arpa ekmek zorunda kald?lar. M? 2500'e gelindi?inde bu?day ekinin yaln?zca yüzde 15'ini olu?turuyordu, M? 2100'e gelindi?inde Ur bu?day? hepten b?rakm??t?.
SAYFA 83
M? 2000'de vakanüvisler dünyan?n "beyaza d?ndü?ü"nü yaz?yorlard?. Arpa dahil hi?bir ürün tutmuyordu. Hasat normaide oldu?unun ü?te birine dü?mü?tü. Sümerlerin tarihteki güne?li bir y?l? sona ermi?ti. Siyasal iktidar kuzeye Babil ve Asur'a, ?ok daha sonra ?slam d?neminde de Ba?dat'a kayd?. Kuzey Mezopotamya'da kanalizasyon sistemi güneyde oldu?undan daha iyiydi, ama orada bile ayn? bozulma d?ngüsü, bir imparatorluktan di?erine modern zamanlara dek tekrarlanacakt?. Bugün Irak'ta sulanan topraklar?n yar?s? tamamen tuzludur, bu dünyadaki en yüksek orand?r, onu nehir k?y?s?nda kurulmu? di?er iki medeniyet merkezi M?s?r ve Pakistan izler.
SAYFA 87
Paskalya Adas? halk? ve Sümerler ?evrelerini o kadar enkaza ?evirmi?lerdi, o kadar ?iddetli bir dü?ü? ya?am??lard? ki tamamen tükenip gittiler. Ama Roma ve Maya medeniyetleri ??kü?lerinden sonra sadele?mi? "orta?a?” bi?imlerinde ya?amaya devam ettiler, arkalar?nda do?rudan onlar?n soylar?ndan gelen, bugün ya?ad???m?z dünyan?n par?as? olan insanlar b?rakt?lar. Roma'n?n v?risleri Bizans ?mparatorlu?u ve modern Latin diyalektleri konu?an Avrupa uluslar?d?r. Mayalar imparatorluk kurmam??lard?, ula?m?? olabilecekleri bir r?nesans da on alt?nc? yüzy?ldaki ?spanyol i?galiyle engellenmi?ti. Ne var ki Maya kültürünün ?lümü abart?lm??t?r. Bugün sekiz milyon insan Maya dillerini konu?ur, bu rakam kabaca Maya'n?n klasik d?nemindeki rakama e?ittir; bu insanlar?n bir?o?u da ay?rt edici bi?imde Maya'ya ?zgü toplumsal ?rgütlenme, inan?, sanat ve takvimsel astroloji uygulamalar?n? benimsemi?lerdir.
Sümer'in sonraki medeniyetler üzerinde büyük etkileri olmas?na ra?men Sümer etnik kimli?i silinip gitmi?tir. Sümer dili Babilli ?limlerin sayg? duydu?u, ya?ayan hi?bir akrabas? olmayan ?lü bir dil olarak hayat?na devam etmi?tir. Oysa bunun tersine anadili Maya dili olanlar Colomb ?ncesi metinlerin ??zülmesinde rol oynam??lar, Maya takvimi rahipleri, yani "gün sayanlar” takvimin baz? k?s?mlar?n? kadim devirlerden bu yana canl? tutmu?lard?r.
SAYFA 108
Burada kar??m?za bir muamma ??kar: Medeniyetler kendi kendilerini bu kadar s?k mahvediyorlarsa, bir bütün olarak medeniyet deneyi bu kadar iyi ger?ekle?tiriliyor? Roma uzun vadede kendi kendisini besleyemediyse, Roma devrinde dünya üzerindeki her insana kar??l?k bugün otuz insan bulunmas? nas?l mümkün olmu?tur?
Bu sorular? k?smen, do?an?n kendi kendisini yenilemesi ve insanlar?n g?? etmesiyle cevaplayabiliriz. Kadim medeniyetler yereldi, belli ekolojiler üzerinden ge?iniyorlard?. Biri dü?erken, ba?ka bir yerde bir di?eri yükseliyordu. Gezegenimizin geni? k?s?mlar?nda yerle?im h?l? azd?r. Dünyan?n tarihi uzaydan h?zl? bir film olarak ?ekilebilseydi, medeniyetlerin orman yang?nlar? gibi, ?nce bir b?lgede sonra bir di?erinde patlak verdi?ini g?rürdük.
November 26, 2023
No, this one didn't do it for me. Only the first chapters are interesting, but after that it goes all the way down. See my more elaborate review in my Sense-of-History-account: /review/show...
August 3, 2024
This book is short and quickly read.
It was written in 2005, the same year that Jared Diamond wrote the far more detailed and penetrating account of failed societies, Collapse. Having read Diamond's book, Wright's work seems very light weight, more of a quick overview with some valuable insight offered.
Wright has a very appealing way with words and I found myself saying "that's right!" many times.
Take this example:
"John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. This helps explain why American culture is so hostile to the idea of limits, why voters during the last energy shortage rejected the sweater-wearing Jimmy Carter and elected Ronald Reagan, who scoffed at conservation and told them it was still "morning in America". Nowhere does the myth of progress have more fervent believers."
His idea is that societies box themselves in by their technologies and become incapable of changing even when there is clear evidence that what they do cannot be sustained. Like Diamond, he offers up the Maya and the Easter Islanders, but his point is general and he points out that hunting and gathering could not support more than a limited human population until farming came to the rescue.
Wright attempts to look at the characteristics of human civilization per se - what do all societies have in common that can help us see where we are headed? One common thread is the movement of wealth to the top with the result that the powers that be will always want to keep things as they are to keep their benefits flowing.
The book is filled with interesting factoids to stop you in your tracks: it took 19 centuries after the fall of Rome to add 200 million people to the population of the world. Now it takes only three years to add this number.
It took from the dawn of time to 1825 for the human population of the Earth to reach 1 billion. We now add 1 billion in 12 years.
Having read this book, Diamond's Collapse, and recently Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, I have to ponder if modern man has opened a Pandora's box with science and technology. For hundreds of thousands of years humanity was in stasis as just another form of animal. Now, seemingly empowered without limit, I wonder about the old story of the person who, questioned why he wants to climb a mountain, answers "because it's there". Humans have always been driven - it comes with being a form of life. Life in itself is driven to survive.
Wright wonders if we can find out something about ourselves by looking at the behavior of past generations and then consider where we are going ("progress"). I wonder if we have any choice...pushing on is just something that we do regardless of the consequences...and we laud it as "the human spirit".
For a very quick read on the topic, get this book. For the nitty gritty, scholarly, fascinatingly detailed, yet tragic accounts of cultures mentioned by Wright and more, read Collapse by Jared Diamond. This book is a caution, so is Diamond's book, but that book is heartbreaking as well because in its detail it really brings the humanity of ancient cultures home.
It was written in 2005, the same year that Jared Diamond wrote the far more detailed and penetrating account of failed societies, Collapse. Having read Diamond's book, Wright's work seems very light weight, more of a quick overview with some valuable insight offered.
Wright has a very appealing way with words and I found myself saying "that's right!" many times.
Take this example:
"John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires. This helps explain why American culture is so hostile to the idea of limits, why voters during the last energy shortage rejected the sweater-wearing Jimmy Carter and elected Ronald Reagan, who scoffed at conservation and told them it was still "morning in America". Nowhere does the myth of progress have more fervent believers."
His idea is that societies box themselves in by their technologies and become incapable of changing even when there is clear evidence that what they do cannot be sustained. Like Diamond, he offers up the Maya and the Easter Islanders, but his point is general and he points out that hunting and gathering could not support more than a limited human population until farming came to the rescue.
Wright attempts to look at the characteristics of human civilization per se - what do all societies have in common that can help us see where we are headed? One common thread is the movement of wealth to the top with the result that the powers that be will always want to keep things as they are to keep their benefits flowing.
The book is filled with interesting factoids to stop you in your tracks: it took 19 centuries after the fall of Rome to add 200 million people to the population of the world. Now it takes only three years to add this number.
It took from the dawn of time to 1825 for the human population of the Earth to reach 1 billion. We now add 1 billion in 12 years.
Having read this book, Diamond's Collapse, and recently Jules Verne's From the Earth to the Moon, I have to ponder if modern man has opened a Pandora's box with science and technology. For hundreds of thousands of years humanity was in stasis as just another form of animal. Now, seemingly empowered without limit, I wonder about the old story of the person who, questioned why he wants to climb a mountain, answers "because it's there". Humans have always been driven - it comes with being a form of life. Life in itself is driven to survive.
Wright wonders if we can find out something about ourselves by looking at the behavior of past generations and then consider where we are going ("progress"). I wonder if we have any choice...pushing on is just something that we do regardless of the consequences...and we laud it as "the human spirit".
For a very quick read on the topic, get this book. For the nitty gritty, scholarly, fascinatingly detailed, yet tragic accounts of cultures mentioned by Wright and more, read Collapse by Jared Diamond. This book is a caution, so is Diamond's book, but that book is heartbreaking as well because in its detail it really brings the humanity of ancient cultures home.
March 13, 2022
In crisp, accessible prose, RW reframes the notion of progress in this concise but sweeping assessment of the predicament of civilizations and the repetitive pattern of destruction.
Commencing with Gauguin's three apocryphal questions(where do we come from? what are we? Where are we going?) he commences to answer them in order to use this knowledge to "plot a wise course" for "the future of everything we have accomplished since intelligence evolved will depend on the wisdom of our actions over the next few years." p3
RW is not content to give an academic overview or merely bring together obscure historical observations and new findings. He is bold enough to reach inevitable conclusions and they are sobering.He notes: Terrorism is a small threat compared with hunger, disease, or climate change....terrorism cannot be stopped by addressing symptoms and not the cause. Violence is bred by injustice, poverty, inequality, and other violence....Of course a full belly and a fair hearing won't stop a fanatic, but they can greatly reduce the number who become fanatics. p126
"If we don't do these things now, while we prosper,we will never be able to do them when times get hard....Now is our last chance to get our future right." p132
Commencing with Gauguin's three apocryphal questions(where do we come from? what are we? Where are we going?) he commences to answer them in order to use this knowledge to "plot a wise course" for "the future of everything we have accomplished since intelligence evolved will depend on the wisdom of our actions over the next few years." p3
RW is not content to give an academic overview or merely bring together obscure historical observations and new findings. He is bold enough to reach inevitable conclusions and they are sobering.He notes: Terrorism is a small threat compared with hunger, disease, or climate change....terrorism cannot be stopped by addressing symptoms and not the cause. Violence is bred by injustice, poverty, inequality, and other violence....Of course a full belly and a fair hearing won't stop a fanatic, but they can greatly reduce the number who become fanatics. p126
"If we don't do these things now, while we prosper,we will never be able to do them when times get hard....Now is our last chance to get our future right." p132
April 10, 2024
I don’t even know what to say…New favorite book potentially. I need it with me all the time for some much needed perspective on the world we live in. Horribly depressing. With the right sprinkle of hope?
Heartbreaking that this came out in 2005 and things have gotten so much worse since then.
It doesn’t really dig too deep on anything because it’s short. He can’t solve every world problem in a random book. (So don’t be expecting that). But, I still think it’s an important read. Proves that history is just a series of patterns that keep repeating.
Lastly, I love when books shoutout other people and books in actually productive ways. This had some awesome quotes -many of which I wrote down. And so many good book recs - a few of which I added to WTR.
Heartbreaking that this came out in 2005 and things have gotten so much worse since then.
It doesn’t really dig too deep on anything because it’s short. He can’t solve every world problem in a random book. (So don’t be expecting that). But, I still think it’s an important read. Proves that history is just a series of patterns that keep repeating.
Lastly, I love when books shoutout other people and books in actually productive ways. This had some awesome quotes -many of which I wrote down. And so many good book recs - a few of which I added to WTR.
March 23, 2015
Every year, Canadians eagerly huddle around their radios to listen to the Massey Lectures, broadcast by the CBC. For the 2004 season, Ronald Wright was the honored speaker. He presented a series of five lectures, titled A Short History of Progress. In 2005, Wright’s presentation was published as a short book, and it became a bestseller. Martin Scorsese’s movie, Surviving Progress, was based on the book.
It was an amazing success for a story contrary to our most holy cultural myths. Wright believed that the benefits of progress were highly overrated, because of their huge costs. Indeed, progress was approaching the point of becoming a serious threat to the existence of humankind. “This new century will not grow very old before we enter an age of chaos and collapse that will dwarf all the dark ages in our past.”
He pointed out that the world was dotted with the ruins of ancient crash sites, civilizations that self-destructed. At each of these wrecks, modern science can, in essence, retrieve the “black box,” and discover why the mighty society crashed and burned. There is a clear pattern. Each one crashed because it destroyed what it depended on for its survival.
Wright takes us on a quick tour of the collapse of Sumer, Easter Island, the Roman Empire, and the Mayans. He explains why the two oddballs, China and Egypt, are taking longer than average to self-destruct. The fatal defects of agriculture and civilization are old news for the folks who have been paying attention. It has become customary for these folks to believe that “The Fall” took place when humans began to domesticate plants and animals.
Wright thinks the truth is more complicated. What makes this book unique and provocative is his notion of progress traps. The benefits of innovation often encourage society to live in a new way, while burning the bridges behind them as they advance. Society can find itself trapped in an unsustainable way of living, and it’s no longer possible to just turn around and painlessly return to a simpler mode. Like today, we know that the temporary bubble of cheap energy is about over, and our entire way of life is dependent on cheap energy. We’re trapped.
Some types of progress do not disrupt the balance of the ecosystem, like using a rock to crack nuts. But our ability to stand upright freed our hands for working with tools and weapons, which launched a million year process of experimentation and innovation that gradually snowballed over time.
We tend to assume that during the long era of hunting and gathering our ancestors were as mindful as the few hunting cultures that managed to survive on the fringes into the twentieth century. But in earlier eras, when big game was abundant, wise stewardship was not mandatory. Sloppy tribes could survive — for a while.
Before they got horses, Indians of the American west would drive herds of buffalo off cliffs, killing many at a time. They took what they needed, and left the rest for legions of scavengers. One site in Colorado contained the carcasses of 152 buffalo. A trader in the northern Rockies witnessed about 250 buffalo being killed at one time. Wright mentioned two Upper Paleolithic sites I had not heard of — 1,000 mammoth skeletons were found at Piedmont in the Czech Republic, and the remains of over 100,000 horses were found at Solutré in France.
Over time, progress perfected our hunting systems. Our supply of high-quality food seemed to be infinite. It was our first experience of prosperity and leisure. Folks had time to take their paint sets into caves and do gorgeous portraits of the animals they lived with, venerated, killed, and ate.
Naturally, our population grew. More babies grew up to be hunters, and the availability of game eventually decreased. The grand era of cave painting ended, and we began hunting rabbits. We depleted species after species, unconsciously gliding into our first serious progress trap.
Some groups scrambled to find alternatives, foraging around beaches, estuaries, wetlands, and bogs. Some learned how to reap the tiny seeds of wild grasses. By and by, the end of the hunting way of life came into view, about 10,000 years ago. “They lived high for a while, then starved.”
Having destroyed the abundant game, it was impossible to return to simpler living. This was a progress trap, and it led directly into a far more dangerous progress trap, the domestication of plants and animals. Agriculture and civilization were accidents, and they threw open the gateway to 10,000 years of monotony, drudgery, misery, and ecocide. Wright says that civilization is a pyramid scheme; we live today at the expense of those who come after us.
For most of human history, the rate of progress was so slow that it was usually invisible. But the last six or seven generations have been blindsided by a typhoon of explosive change. Progress has a habit of giving birth to problems that can only be solved by more progress. Progress was the most diabolically wicked curse you could ever imagine. Maybe we should turn it into an insulting obscenity: “progress you!”
Climate scientists have created models showing weather trends over the last 250,000 years, based on ice cores. Agriculture probably didn’t start earlier because climate trends were unstable. Big swings could take place over the course of decades. In the last 10,000 years, the climate has been unusually stable. A return to instability will make civilization impossible.
Joseph Tainter studied how civilizations collapse, and he described three highways to disaster: the Runaway Train (out-of-control problems), the Dinosaur (indifference to dangers), and the House of Cards (irreversible disintegration). He predicted that the next collapse would be global in scale.
Finally, the solution: “The reform that is needed is… simply the transition from short-term thinking to long-term.” Can we do it?
We are quite clever, but seldom wise, according to Wright. Ordinary animals, like our ancestors, had no need for long-term thinking, because life was always lived in the here and now. “Free Beer Tomorrow” reads the flashing neon sign on the tavern, but we never exist in tomorrow.
The great news is that we now possess a mountain of black boxes. For the first time in the human journey, a growing number of people comprehend our great mistakes, and are capable of envisioning a new path that eventually abandons our embarrassing boo-boos forever. All the old barriers to wisdom and healing have been swept away (in theory).
Everywhere you look these days; people are stumbling around staring at tiny screens and furiously typing — eagerly communicating with world experts, engaging in profound discussions, watching videos rich with illuminating information, and reading the works of green visionaries. It’s a magnificent sight to behold — the best is yet to come!
It was an amazing success for a story contrary to our most holy cultural myths. Wright believed that the benefits of progress were highly overrated, because of their huge costs. Indeed, progress was approaching the point of becoming a serious threat to the existence of humankind. “This new century will not grow very old before we enter an age of chaos and collapse that will dwarf all the dark ages in our past.”
He pointed out that the world was dotted with the ruins of ancient crash sites, civilizations that self-destructed. At each of these wrecks, modern science can, in essence, retrieve the “black box,” and discover why the mighty society crashed and burned. There is a clear pattern. Each one crashed because it destroyed what it depended on for its survival.
Wright takes us on a quick tour of the collapse of Sumer, Easter Island, the Roman Empire, and the Mayans. He explains why the two oddballs, China and Egypt, are taking longer than average to self-destruct. The fatal defects of agriculture and civilization are old news for the folks who have been paying attention. It has become customary for these folks to believe that “The Fall” took place when humans began to domesticate plants and animals.
Wright thinks the truth is more complicated. What makes this book unique and provocative is his notion of progress traps. The benefits of innovation often encourage society to live in a new way, while burning the bridges behind them as they advance. Society can find itself trapped in an unsustainable way of living, and it’s no longer possible to just turn around and painlessly return to a simpler mode. Like today, we know that the temporary bubble of cheap energy is about over, and our entire way of life is dependent on cheap energy. We’re trapped.
Some types of progress do not disrupt the balance of the ecosystem, like using a rock to crack nuts. But our ability to stand upright freed our hands for working with tools and weapons, which launched a million year process of experimentation and innovation that gradually snowballed over time.
We tend to assume that during the long era of hunting and gathering our ancestors were as mindful as the few hunting cultures that managed to survive on the fringes into the twentieth century. But in earlier eras, when big game was abundant, wise stewardship was not mandatory. Sloppy tribes could survive — for a while.
Before they got horses, Indians of the American west would drive herds of buffalo off cliffs, killing many at a time. They took what they needed, and left the rest for legions of scavengers. One site in Colorado contained the carcasses of 152 buffalo. A trader in the northern Rockies witnessed about 250 buffalo being killed at one time. Wright mentioned two Upper Paleolithic sites I had not heard of — 1,000 mammoth skeletons were found at Piedmont in the Czech Republic, and the remains of over 100,000 horses were found at Solutré in France.
Over time, progress perfected our hunting systems. Our supply of high-quality food seemed to be infinite. It was our first experience of prosperity and leisure. Folks had time to take their paint sets into caves and do gorgeous portraits of the animals they lived with, venerated, killed, and ate.
Naturally, our population grew. More babies grew up to be hunters, and the availability of game eventually decreased. The grand era of cave painting ended, and we began hunting rabbits. We depleted species after species, unconsciously gliding into our first serious progress trap.
Some groups scrambled to find alternatives, foraging around beaches, estuaries, wetlands, and bogs. Some learned how to reap the tiny seeds of wild grasses. By and by, the end of the hunting way of life came into view, about 10,000 years ago. “They lived high for a while, then starved.”
Having destroyed the abundant game, it was impossible to return to simpler living. This was a progress trap, and it led directly into a far more dangerous progress trap, the domestication of plants and animals. Agriculture and civilization were accidents, and they threw open the gateway to 10,000 years of monotony, drudgery, misery, and ecocide. Wright says that civilization is a pyramid scheme; we live today at the expense of those who come after us.
For most of human history, the rate of progress was so slow that it was usually invisible. But the last six or seven generations have been blindsided by a typhoon of explosive change. Progress has a habit of giving birth to problems that can only be solved by more progress. Progress was the most diabolically wicked curse you could ever imagine. Maybe we should turn it into an insulting obscenity: “progress you!”
Climate scientists have created models showing weather trends over the last 250,000 years, based on ice cores. Agriculture probably didn’t start earlier because climate trends were unstable. Big swings could take place over the course of decades. In the last 10,000 years, the climate has been unusually stable. A return to instability will make civilization impossible.
Joseph Tainter studied how civilizations collapse, and he described three highways to disaster: the Runaway Train (out-of-control problems), the Dinosaur (indifference to dangers), and the House of Cards (irreversible disintegration). He predicted that the next collapse would be global in scale.
Finally, the solution: “The reform that is needed is… simply the transition from short-term thinking to long-term.” Can we do it?
We are quite clever, but seldom wise, according to Wright. Ordinary animals, like our ancestors, had no need for long-term thinking, because life was always lived in the here and now. “Free Beer Tomorrow” reads the flashing neon sign on the tavern, but we never exist in tomorrow.
The great news is that we now possess a mountain of black boxes. For the first time in the human journey, a growing number of people comprehend our great mistakes, and are capable of envisioning a new path that eventually abandons our embarrassing boo-boos forever. All the old barriers to wisdom and healing have been swept away (in theory).
Everywhere you look these days; people are stumbling around staring at tiny screens and furiously typing — eagerly communicating with world experts, engaging in profound discussions, watching videos rich with illuminating information, and reading the works of green visionaries. It’s a magnificent sight to behold — the best is yet to come!
December 14, 2018
This was a superb and very informative series of lectures delivered by the author at cities throughout Canada in 2004- each lecture being a chapter of his book of the same title. It was great listening to Mr. Wright's voice actually reading his book, in his British-Canadian accent - precisely and presciently, although much of what he warned about has since come about or intensified. The world is slipping into political chaos with the rise of the right wing and the ill effects of climate change, which was clearly not sufficiently tackled in time, are becoming increasingly apparent. Having listened to the book, I can certainly recommend it to any reader interested in what the lessons of the past can teach us about the present and future.
Rather than recapitulate Mr. Wright's main points, suffice it to say that the book builds a compelling case that unless mankind finds a way to deal with environmental destruction leading to climate change, we shall be unable to avoid the inevitable consequences of global warming etc, which will lead to worldwide economic and civilization collapse - since time and time again, on a smaller scale, this is exactly what has happened when mankind engages in the project of constructing civilizations without heed for the future - mistakenly thinking there are infinite resources, such as an infinite amount of woodland and so forth.
Only two centers of pre-modern civilization have managed to evade the sociopolitical fate of all of the others - that of Egypt and China, because their farmland is continually replenished by new topsoil that is washed down by rivers or blown in by winds. In Peru, the hillside terraces built during the time of the Inca civilization are still in use, although the Inca empire itself, which had a command economy, collapsed centuries ago, more the victim of Western disease than of the conquistadors.
Unfortunately, the present reaction in some parts of the world to the need to drastically reduce dependency on the oil- or carbon-based energy so as to avoid global warming and the drowning of coastal cities by rising sea levels, is a repetition of the sad final acts of fallen civilizations of the past, when the runaway train, as Mr. Wright puts it, led inevitably off a cliff of collapse - except that this time, the collapse will be on a global scale given Earth's economic inter-dependency, unlike in past eras, when the collapse of one civilization, such as Sumer, might only affect a few tens of thousands and be limited in geographical scope.
Let's hope that the trend, which Mr. Wright correctly identified about 15 years ago in these lectures, of right-wing politicians such as Reagan and Bush, who avoided tackling the problem of climate change since it would cut into the profits of oil companies, and which has now culminated with the rise of Trump, who is pushing coal and oil despite many warnings for decades that burning all forms of carbon will eventually lead to environmental collapse, may finally be reversed with new leadership. The key to environmental justice is identical to that of socio-economic justice: Impose a wealth tax on a global basis, so that the undue and disproportionate power and influence of the plutocrats and multinational corporations can be reined in and power can once again reside in the hands of the 99% as it should be rather than in the hands of the 1%. It will then be up to the people to re-prioritize the goals of the economy, so that rather than it being tailored to funnel profits to the vested interests acting through puppet-like bought and paid for politicians, a more egalitarian approach is implemented which also respects the environment as much as possible.
The Paris Agreement was a good first step but it's clear that since the pace of climate change is picking up, so must the effort to stop dumping carbon & all greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There is no scientific evidence that will convince Trump of the reality of man-made climate change. The US has taken a giant step backward on curbing harmful emissions & in general, despoiling the environment, in the past two years. That is why electoral change is needed in 2020 - to elect officials who will implement policies that will favor the 99%, rather than the 1%, and also return to the Paris Agreement.
Unfortunately, electoral politics today is serving up the same sort of cookie cutter establishment politicians who put us into the mess we find ourselves in at present, victims of the twin evils of increasing income inequality and the rise of an oligarchy or plutocracy, as well as of environmental degradation. This explains the low voter participation rate in elections since voting for either of the two flavors of the same pro-1% team seems to many to be a pointless waste of time.
The rise of income inequality and the rapid pace of environmental degradation are of course linked, since the plutocrats will do anything to keep the money flowing to them, by over-exploiting the earth and the earth's peoples - and given their immense wealth, they can also buy politicians in every country to ensure that the present system that so enriches the few at the expense of the many, continues. Trump is a servant of this class of environmental and human despoilers, and he is using typical reactionary themes to hoodwink the exploited to support those who actually are harming them, the plutocrats who stand behind and pull the strings of many politicians, the "power behind the throne" as it were. Rather than face facts about the the grossly unequal distribution of social goods, exploitation, or the effects of climate change, Trump deflects the "blame" to immigration, tries to mesmerize his listeners that they are somehow "superior" to all other people on earth by virtue of being native-born Americans, especially white native-born Americans. This is the same false narrative used by fascists such as Hitler, unfortunately given credence by hopeless, exploited and sadly deluded throngs, who were dehumanized by the evil rhetoric which led to the loss of countless lives.
Although many civilizations have collapsed in relative isolation, such as the one on Easter Island - today we have the long sweep of history to inform us as to the consequences of inaction so there is no excuse to tempt fate. Continuing on the present course of avoiding environmental and social justice, will, with inevitable or mathematical certainty, lead to disaster for everyone on earth - including of course the 1%.
Rather than recapitulate Mr. Wright's main points, suffice it to say that the book builds a compelling case that unless mankind finds a way to deal with environmental destruction leading to climate change, we shall be unable to avoid the inevitable consequences of global warming etc, which will lead to worldwide economic and civilization collapse - since time and time again, on a smaller scale, this is exactly what has happened when mankind engages in the project of constructing civilizations without heed for the future - mistakenly thinking there are infinite resources, such as an infinite amount of woodland and so forth.
Only two centers of pre-modern civilization have managed to evade the sociopolitical fate of all of the others - that of Egypt and China, because their farmland is continually replenished by new topsoil that is washed down by rivers or blown in by winds. In Peru, the hillside terraces built during the time of the Inca civilization are still in use, although the Inca empire itself, which had a command economy, collapsed centuries ago, more the victim of Western disease than of the conquistadors.
Unfortunately, the present reaction in some parts of the world to the need to drastically reduce dependency on the oil- or carbon-based energy so as to avoid global warming and the drowning of coastal cities by rising sea levels, is a repetition of the sad final acts of fallen civilizations of the past, when the runaway train, as Mr. Wright puts it, led inevitably off a cliff of collapse - except that this time, the collapse will be on a global scale given Earth's economic inter-dependency, unlike in past eras, when the collapse of one civilization, such as Sumer, might only affect a few tens of thousands and be limited in geographical scope.
Let's hope that the trend, which Mr. Wright correctly identified about 15 years ago in these lectures, of right-wing politicians such as Reagan and Bush, who avoided tackling the problem of climate change since it would cut into the profits of oil companies, and which has now culminated with the rise of Trump, who is pushing coal and oil despite many warnings for decades that burning all forms of carbon will eventually lead to environmental collapse, may finally be reversed with new leadership. The key to environmental justice is identical to that of socio-economic justice: Impose a wealth tax on a global basis, so that the undue and disproportionate power and influence of the plutocrats and multinational corporations can be reined in and power can once again reside in the hands of the 99% as it should be rather than in the hands of the 1%. It will then be up to the people to re-prioritize the goals of the economy, so that rather than it being tailored to funnel profits to the vested interests acting through puppet-like bought and paid for politicians, a more egalitarian approach is implemented which also respects the environment as much as possible.
The Paris Agreement was a good first step but it's clear that since the pace of climate change is picking up, so must the effort to stop dumping carbon & all greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. There is no scientific evidence that will convince Trump of the reality of man-made climate change. The US has taken a giant step backward on curbing harmful emissions & in general, despoiling the environment, in the past two years. That is why electoral change is needed in 2020 - to elect officials who will implement policies that will favor the 99%, rather than the 1%, and also return to the Paris Agreement.
Unfortunately, electoral politics today is serving up the same sort of cookie cutter establishment politicians who put us into the mess we find ourselves in at present, victims of the twin evils of increasing income inequality and the rise of an oligarchy or plutocracy, as well as of environmental degradation. This explains the low voter participation rate in elections since voting for either of the two flavors of the same pro-1% team seems to many to be a pointless waste of time.
The rise of income inequality and the rapid pace of environmental degradation are of course linked, since the plutocrats will do anything to keep the money flowing to them, by over-exploiting the earth and the earth's peoples - and given their immense wealth, they can also buy politicians in every country to ensure that the present system that so enriches the few at the expense of the many, continues. Trump is a servant of this class of environmental and human despoilers, and he is using typical reactionary themes to hoodwink the exploited to support those who actually are harming them, the plutocrats who stand behind and pull the strings of many politicians, the "power behind the throne" as it were. Rather than face facts about the the grossly unequal distribution of social goods, exploitation, or the effects of climate change, Trump deflects the "blame" to immigration, tries to mesmerize his listeners that they are somehow "superior" to all other people on earth by virtue of being native-born Americans, especially white native-born Americans. This is the same false narrative used by fascists such as Hitler, unfortunately given credence by hopeless, exploited and sadly deluded throngs, who were dehumanized by the evil rhetoric which led to the loss of countless lives.
Although many civilizations have collapsed in relative isolation, such as the one on Easter Island - today we have the long sweep of history to inform us as to the consequences of inaction so there is no excuse to tempt fate. Continuing on the present course of avoiding environmental and social justice, will, with inevitable or mathematical certainty, lead to disaster for everyone on earth - including of course the 1%.
April 21, 2020
???? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? : "?? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????????"
?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????.
??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ?? ????? (????? ?? ???? ????) ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????.
?????? ??????? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ?... ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????.
???? ?? ???? "?? ??? ?????????" ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? "?? ??? ????????" ???????? ?? "?? ????? ?? ??? ?????!" ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? - ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ? ??????? ? ????????? -
??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ? ??? ?? ???? "???? ????? ????? ????." ????? ?????.
?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???! ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ??????????? ?????????.
????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? "????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????" ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? "?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ?????."
?.? : ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????.
?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????.
??????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ?? ????? (????? ?? ???? ????) ????? ? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????.
?????? ??????? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ? ????? ?... ???? ?????? ???? ???? ? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????.
???? ?? ???? "?? ??? ?????????" ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? "?? ??? ????????" ???????? ?? "?? ????? ?? ??? ?????!" ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? - ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ? ??????? ? ????????? -
??? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ? ??? ?? ???? "???? ????? ????? ????." ????? ?????.
?????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???! ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ? ??? ?? ??? ?? ????????? ?? ????? ? ????? ?? ???? ??????????? ?????????.
????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? "????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????" ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? "?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ?? ????????? ??? ?? ?????."
?.? : ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????.
January 4, 2008
What an amazing book. I actually heard about this while driving back to Rochester through Buffalo one night. The author was selected as the Massey Lecturer for Canada and was on the CBC basically reading the first chapter from his book. I was fucken mesmerized. The signal finally broke and I found the book and immediately read it. I've never really read any radical anthropology with the exception of David Graeber among a few others, but his writing style was totally accessible and invigorating and his conclusions were immense--things I've never heard. I'll never forget his discussion of Gauguin's questions--who are we, where do we come from, where are we going. He used this as an analogy to create the conditions in which to explore the larger and more pressing social, historical, and biological question of "progress" and where it's taken the human species. I may need to read this book again really soon. I highly recommend it!
September 11, 2008
REQUIRED READING for every human being. A very succinct and straightforward account of how civilizations rise and fall. The basic premise is that humans usually outstrip their natural resources, making their society unstable. Civil unrest and natural disasters ensue that kill off most of the civilians and lead to the downfall of the civilization itself. Can we say "Rome" anybody?
The author is hopeful that we homo sapiens can learn from the mistakes of the past and begin conserving our resources. As he puts it, this has nothing to do with one's political or economical opinions. It is simply transitioning from short-term to long-term thinking.
You may have a pessimistic week while reading this one, but if you're the type who would choose the red pill over the blue pill then you must read this book.
The author is hopeful that we homo sapiens can learn from the mistakes of the past and begin conserving our resources. As he puts it, this has nothing to do with one's political or economical opinions. It is simply transitioning from short-term to long-term thinking.
You may have a pessimistic week while reading this one, but if you're the type who would choose the red pill over the blue pill then you must read this book.
August 20, 2018
"The human career divides in two: everything before the Neolithic Revolution and everything after it" is the phrase in the book I like quoting and it is indicative for Wright's very short treatise of the human story and his deconstruction of progress. Read this book and you learn about sapiens as much as from Harari's ten times more voluminous work.
April 15, 2023
A Short History of Progress is a written summation of the authors' 2004 Massey Lectures broadcast on the CBC. Page-for-page this was one of the more interesting non-fiction books I've read recently. The author makes a pretty compelling premise, backed up by anthropological evidence, that the collapse of 4 ancient civilizations have followed a pattern that is currently repeating itself. Definitely not an uplifting read (and I'm not positive I agree with all of the author's conclusions) but it was interesting, cogent, and made me think a lot.
March 15, 2013
In 2001, Ronald Wright was selected to give the 2004 Massey Lectures on CBC. "A Short History of Progress" was his attempt to answer three questions posed by the painter Gauguin: Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?
Unlike the last few books I've read, I can't give it an unhesitating endorsement. As the title suggests, it is short at 132 pages, but it took me nearly 3 weeks to finish. Part of that is because it has been a busy couple of weeks, but the lion's share is that I didn't feel the impetus to go back to the book once I put it down. It didn't catch me as other books on the subject did; I read to enjoy the well-written phrases the author linked together in his warning, but there seemed little more than that.
"A Short History of Progress" is an appetizer. It is well-written, but lacks substance. Following Jared Diamond's excellent books, perhaps this was inevitable. This is a book that would serve as a wonderful introduction to someone newly introduced to our history and the impact it is having on our future, but those looking for more depth would be advised to seek out something more akin to the main course.
Unlike the last few books I've read, I can't give it an unhesitating endorsement. As the title suggests, it is short at 132 pages, but it took me nearly 3 weeks to finish. Part of that is because it has been a busy couple of weeks, but the lion's share is that I didn't feel the impetus to go back to the book once I put it down. It didn't catch me as other books on the subject did; I read to enjoy the well-written phrases the author linked together in his warning, but there seemed little more than that.
"A Short History of Progress" is an appetizer. It is well-written, but lacks substance. Following Jared Diamond's excellent books, perhaps this was inevitable. This is a book that would serve as a wonderful introduction to someone newly introduced to our history and the impact it is having on our future, but those looking for more depth would be advised to seek out something more akin to the main course.
August 14, 2014
I read this book after "Collapse", so for me it was a sort of summary of what is described in detail in Jared Diamond's excellent book (even if Wright does not agree completely with Diamond). Basically, the human race is on the brink of destructing planet Earth, because of its greed and stupidity. Other societies already accomplished the task of self-destruction, but on smaller scale and isolated environments – such as the infamous Easter Island.
Nowadays, globalization means that humankind has the power to wipe out the whole of itself, not just small populations living on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere. This also thanks to neoliberal capitalism, which degrades nature into "ecosystem service" and the concept that "everything can be seen in terms of economics".
Unfortunately, it looks like the monkeys already started destroying the lab and nobody will stop them...
Nowadays, globalization means that humankind has the power to wipe out the whole of itself, not just small populations living on a tiny island in the middle of nowhere. This also thanks to neoliberal capitalism, which degrades nature into "ecosystem service" and the concept that "everything can be seen in terms of economics".
Unfortunately, it looks like the monkeys already started destroying the lab and nobody will stop them...
January 10, 2024
Wright frames the climate crisis in the historical context of other civilizations’ declines or collapse. He leans on the archeological and artistic record of humanity, warning that “unlike written history, which is often highly edited, archeology can uncover the deeds we have forgotten, or have chosen to forget”. Wright examined the existential threat posed by global climate and land use change on pragmatic, historical, and ecological terms, rather than moral ones. In doing so he brings an new perspective to the climate conversation, albeit with some dated language and ideas (was ‘Amerindian’ kosher in 2004?).
Similar to Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael, this work suggests that the Earth is beyond its human carrying capacity and that GHGs aside, we’ve got an agricultural and overpopulation issue to confront. Wright warns that the loss of farmable land has been the make-or-break issue for civilizations past. Chapter IV essentially argues that Egypt and China survived where Rome, Sumer, and Easter Island failed because top soil production and ecological services in the former places were more forgiving. This may play a factor, and yields important lessons for modern agriculture. It also feels oversimplistic, both in Wright’s assessment of what constitutes a collapse or continuance of civilization, and in his discussion of the roll social systems play in determining wellbeing. However, if “the population grows until it hits the balance of the food supply”, we are faced with serious threats that only find solutions in population control, which is a discussion rarely centred in environmental movements.
Wright’s arguments throughout this book work within the assumption that agriculture and the division of labor breed the accumulation of wealth; that “all civilizations become hierarchical; the upper concentration of wealth ensures that there can never be enough to go around”. The volume of historical evidence Wright cites (though I shy from words like “all” and “never”) prompted me to think more about how I understand this century’s unprecedented levels of global wealth disparity.
I would seriously recommend reading this book –and all its footnotes–over listening to the lectures. Perhaps for sake of time or listenability, there are vital nuances that get left of the main (spoken) text of this book. The discussion of smallpox and its political consequences in the Americas is left largely out of the lecture. The inclusion of Pacific North West Indigenous peoples and polities amongst history’s civilizations (despite the “lack” of agricultural practice) should be more than a footnote.
If you do read A Short History of Progress, you’ll find a concise, interesting, and throughly researched examination of our global civilization (or economic system) that is still relevant today.
Similar to Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael, this work suggests that the Earth is beyond its human carrying capacity and that GHGs aside, we’ve got an agricultural and overpopulation issue to confront. Wright warns that the loss of farmable land has been the make-or-break issue for civilizations past. Chapter IV essentially argues that Egypt and China survived where Rome, Sumer, and Easter Island failed because top soil production and ecological services in the former places were more forgiving. This may play a factor, and yields important lessons for modern agriculture. It also feels oversimplistic, both in Wright’s assessment of what constitutes a collapse or continuance of civilization, and in his discussion of the roll social systems play in determining wellbeing. However, if “the population grows until it hits the balance of the food supply”, we are faced with serious threats that only find solutions in population control, which is a discussion rarely centred in environmental movements.
Wright’s arguments throughout this book work within the assumption that agriculture and the division of labor breed the accumulation of wealth; that “all civilizations become hierarchical; the upper concentration of wealth ensures that there can never be enough to go around”. The volume of historical evidence Wright cites (though I shy from words like “all” and “never”) prompted me to think more about how I understand this century’s unprecedented levels of global wealth disparity.
I would seriously recommend reading this book –and all its footnotes–over listening to the lectures. Perhaps for sake of time or listenability, there are vital nuances that get left of the main (spoken) text of this book. The discussion of smallpox and its political consequences in the Americas is left largely out of the lecture. The inclusion of Pacific North West Indigenous peoples and polities amongst history’s civilizations (despite the “lack” of agricultural practice) should be more than a footnote.
If you do read A Short History of Progress, you’ll find a concise, interesting, and throughly researched examination of our global civilization (or economic system) that is still relevant today.
May 12, 2024
My daughter happened upon this book and recommended it highly. It’s short, but packed with information and insights, many of which were new to me. I enjoyed it so much I read all the footnotes.
For those of us who never studied anthropology in school, I think it is a must-read. Plus the author’s prose keeps you engaged—I’ll look for his other books.
For those of us who never studied anthropology in school, I think it is a must-read. Plus the author’s prose keeps you engaged—I’ll look for his other books.
December 14, 2023
Tankevekkende og konsis historiefortelling som man kan l?re mye av. Flere ideer festet seg ved meg - men selv om referansene til forskning er mange, f?les boken innimellom litt mer spektakul?r enn vitenskapelig!
April 25, 2021
132 pages of sharp, witty, and entertaining writing with rather dire and depressing conclusions. Fantastic sweep of history to warn about our future. Highest tier of recommended reading from me.
March 20, 2022
An enjoyable little read. It was fun and sad to learn about the fate of civilisations that came before ours. I appreciated that the stance he took in the end was apolitical and good common sense - look ahead and play the long game.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 487 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.