Ian Morris is clearly a big picture man. I had read his book on "War: what is it good for" and it is a similar attempt to provide some sweeping generalisations about human history ...and maybe even some "rules" which have universal application. In the case of the current book his basic thesis is that humankind's development can essentially be slotted into three broad categories: 1). The forager, 2). The Farmer and 3). The consumer of fossil fuels. (As he admits somewhere, he was trying very hard to achieve a catchy alliteration with his title: I think he achieved it).
If I can try and capture his line of reasoning he thinks that foragers were basically free-ranging individuals and there is little hierarchy. Wealth....such as it is....is fairly evenly distributed and "every man is his own headman". Rates of violence, particularly competition over women, was high ....he claims a 10 percent chance of dying a violent death. And, of course, energy use per person was low (around 5,000 kcal/capita/day).....probably most of that from fires to keep warm or to cook.
Things changed significantly as foragers settled down into agricultural communities. A pattern emerged of elites and a "general acceptance of glaring inequalities.....and occasional outburst of levelling rage". Pillage and rape and enslavement of adjoining agricultural communities was common. Though (the point he makes in his book about what is war good for?) when various communities were subjugated, that generally led to a period of peace under one overlord. Successful rulers gradually drove down the rates of violent death. And there was a tendency of religion to re-enforce the notion that the elites were placed there by the gods and a hierarchy was ordained by the gods.....this kept the peasants in their place!! Energy consumption per capita still remained low....generally around 6,000kcal/cap/day but might have risen to around 30,000kcal/cap/day in some societies. He makes the point (p158) that shipping gave an energy bonus all around the Atlantic of about 10% ...which he seems to attribute to comparative advantage and trade. (Though he doesn't seem to take into account the actual wind-energy harvested by sailing ships.....which must have been huge. (Sufficient to sustain the huge grain trade between India and the Roman Empire for hundreds of years). Rates of violence were apparently lower in agricultural communities than with foragers. And society was male dominated.
The discovery and use of fossil fuels (coal, gas, petroleum) changed everything. Hard to argue with this. Per capita consumption of energy rose abruptly in western nations from around 1800 to about 230,000 kcal/cap/day and other nations are following the same sort of trajectory but with a later start date. Populations exploded, demand for goods likewise exploded ...and the timing was fortuitous because factories were producing at a massively increased rate over cottage industries. Inequality increased...and fossil fuels tended to sweep away the demand for forced labour (Though this could be argued). Women have achieved much greater equality and form a much greater proportion of the paid workforce. There appears to have been a retreat of religion ....and, according to Morris, despite world wars etc., the chance of dying a violent death has continued to retreat. Democracy has expanded and continues to be the preferred political system by most people . (Though one might wonder about what is happening in China these days). Inequality (in terms of incomes) appears to have risen though Morris toys with the idea that equality might be more about "equal opportunity". In the USA the Gini index has risen from around 0.36 in the late 60's to around 0.47 in 2014. And even in China the Gini coefficient rose from around 0.3 in 1976 to 0.47 in 2009. (Higher number means more inequality).
Hence, Morris advances the thesis that there have basically been three forms of human social structures over the past 20,000 years or so and each has a characteristic usage of energy. And human values adjusted between these three stages of human social structures so there is a relationship between energy use and human values.
What is especially interesting about this book is that because these were "the Tanner lectures on human values" delivered in Princeton in 2012, we have the benefit of a series of "replies" from various specialists:
A Professor of ancient greek suggests that Morris does not truly account for farming values which vary widely..and singles out ancient Athens as a challenge for Morris.
A former Professor of History and expert on China suggests that Morris's broad stages of human development are maybe too sweeping and we miss the variation that a finer level of detail would give.
And the third commentator, a professor of philosophy, shows (really just as an aside) that Morris ignores the pastoralists in his categories. I agree. I think that nomadic herding is vastly different from sedentary farming and one did not necessarily lead to the other. So the values of nomadic herds-people might not align with his categories for farmers ....and certainly such people were a perpetual thorn in the side of the Middle East civilisations. (Not accepting political hierarchy, as farmers did, for example). She also criticises Morris's use of values along the "is-ought" criticism of David Hume. That is, Morris talks about the positive values (her words) that are actually applied by various cultures, versus real moral values which OUGHT to apply. (Hence, I think, she would argue that women's rights OUGHT to apply at all stages of human development, and slavery was wrong in all situations). Having written a Masters thesis about human values, I have some sympathy with her criticism. (Values terminology is inconsistent and rather loosely applied by everyone who writes about it).
But overall, it's a book that has made me think. One can nit-pick ...and I think that's really all the commentators have done. But, hard to totally disagree with his theses. I give it 4.5 stars. ( )

Fascinating topic and interesting argument, but too Long, too academic and too arrogant for me to really enjoy. ( )

Después del éxito de ¿Por qué manda Occidente… por ahora?, Ian Morris aborda la ambiciosa tarea de explicar la evolución de los valores de las sociedades humanas desde la prehistoria hasta la actualidad. Este es un libro provocador que explica de dónde proceden y cómo y por qué han evolucionado nuestros códigos morales a lo largo de la historia.
En una original propuesta, el libro incorpora capítulos escritos por críticos acérrimos de Morris: el historiador Richard Seaford, el sinólogo Jonathan D. Spence, la filósofa Christine M. Korsgaard y la escritora Margaret Atwood. Morris responde a sus argumentos de forma inteligente e incisiva.
Una vez más la erudición y la capacidad de hacer accesibles los procesos complejos de la macrohistoria se dan la mano en este volumen de Ian Morris, que hará las delicias de los amantes de la historia.

303.4 M8763 2015