//"There was no concept of individual rights at all. The leader of the family/tribe/city had absolute power of life and death. Members of other families/tribes/cities did not count as human and were to be killed immediately."
This doesn't surprise me at all, actually. I find Sapolsky's views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORthzIOEf30) on human behaviors (rooted in biology) to be the most instructive model i've found; any application of our 100,000 years ago (as humans) behavior, culture, and ethics is very much predicated on the small kinship ties (~20 people) that dominated 90% of our existence as homosapiens. Extrapolate this out to post agricultural society (cities) and it seems logical it would play out like this.
// The main conclusion I drew from the book is that ethnic divisions aren't going anywhere, and in fact will still be the basis of much of human society a thousand years from now.
I actually think this isn't the case - if we can escape our biology/genetics via technology (nanobots, genetic engineering, transhumanism), which we may be able to very soon with exponential technology growth, we could just as easily blot out our prior structures and engineer an existence that is entirely new.
The substitution of beliefs for family explains the fanaticism of todays "believers" of increasingly illogical claims.
As per Pirsig:
“No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” -- Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Did anyone else find this books structure and tone a little jarring. For writing about ancient history, focusing on narratives that aren't common knowledge, it takes a very definitive tone. I haven't done too much digging, but are there any critiques by historians on the certainty with which the author presents information? It comes off as very confident in the clear narrative the author creates.
Modern cults build on the same foundations, but they exist in a completely different technological environment. It matters that tribal cults relied largely on oral transmission. Written language changed everything and led to traditional religion. Modern cults exist in an environment of mass media, which has caused humans to adopt a different model of self. People relate to them in new ways. The old ways still exist as the foundation, but the myths are weaker in some sense.
//"There was no concept of individual rights at all. The leader of the family/tribe/city had absolute power of life and death. Members of other families/tribes/cities did not count as human and were to be killed immediately."
This doesn't surprise me at all, actually. I find Sapolsky's views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORthzIOEf30) on human behaviors (rooted in biology) to be the most instructive model i've found; any application of our 100,000 years ago (as humans) behavior, culture, and ethics is very much predicated on the small kinship ties (~20 people) that dominated 90% of our existence as homosapiens. Extrapolate this out to post agricultural society (cities) and it seems logical it would play out like this.
// The main conclusion I drew from the book is that ethnic divisions aren't going anywhere, and in fact will still be the basis of much of human society a thousand years from now.
I actually think this isn't the case - if we can escape our biology/genetics via technology (nanobots, genetic engineering, transhumanism), which we may be able to very soon with exponential technology growth, we could just as easily blot out our prior structures and engineer an existence that is entirely new.
The substitution of beliefs for family explains the fanaticism of todays "believers" of increasingly illogical claims.
As per Pirsig:
“No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it’s going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it’s always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.” -- Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
It's cool how we can learn so much about ourselves and our society by studying history and how we evolved. Human nature rarely changes.
Did anyone else find this books structure and tone a little jarring. For writing about ancient history, focusing on narratives that aren't common knowledge, it takes a very definitive tone. I haven't done too much digging, but are there any critiques by historians on the certainty with which the author presents information? It comes off as very confident in the clear narrative the author creates.
Great I just started reading this book too and now you ruined the ending
Modern cults build on the same foundations, but they exist in a completely different technological environment. It matters that tribal cults relied largely on oral transmission. Written language changed everything and led to traditional religion. Modern cults exist in an environment of mass media, which has caused humans to adopt a different model of self. People relate to them in new ways. The old ways still exist as the foundation, but the myths are weaker in some sense.
Nice read, I've been recommended this book by many people and it's on my list as soon as my kiddo stops taking 100% of my time!