Scan barcode
orbufo's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.25
He has some interesting and good points, but it kind of feels like your uncle going on a rant at Thanksgiving about how the world is doomed.
goodneighborbooks's review against another edition
5.0
A lot of great insight in this book as Christopher Ryan covers almost every aspect of our humanity. I didn’t agree with all of his arguments, but they were well argued.
the_neon_poodle's review against another edition
4.0
I really enjoyed this book. This is in many ways a pessimistic version of [b:De meeste mensen deugen|45995328|De meeste mensen deugen|Rutger Bregman|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1558569920l/45995328._SY75_.jpg|70850890]. They use the same research, the same examples. While Bregman is more concerned with human nature and how we can make the world better. Ryan focuses more on how modern society breaks human nature.
The book would be better in my opinion if Ryan would come up with more solutions for the future. How we can make a more paleo/tribal/hunter-gatherer society with the background and knowledge of our modern society.
The book would be better in my opinion if Ryan would come up with more solutions for the future. How we can make a more paleo/tribal/hunter-gatherer society with the background and knowledge of our modern society.
amyv's review against another edition
4.0
Absolutely engrossing, enraging, and fascinating, with a robust notes section. Also, at times, genuinely funny writing despite the serious topics. Occasionally in the second half I felt like Ryan lost a bit of direction, and in particular the chapters on psychotropic drugs and parenting didn't feel as well integrated as the others. But still overall a book that opened my eyes to some things, confirmed my sense of others, and I'd gladly come back to it again to let the research sink in further.
tgh124's review against another edition
5.0
Reading Nina's review made me think of my reactions to this book. I think Christopher Ryan set it out almost like a dialectic, with the hunter/forager culture as thesis for Homo Sapiens sapiens, and the settled agricultural NPP civilization as almost an antithesis, (with organized monotheistic religion as a support for that culture). And then he gives hints at possible synthesis.
If we're "hard wired" for cooperation and sharing, I think there is still plenty of that to be found, but maybe our "progress" does work against it's full expression. There probably won't be any mass movement of small communities to live off the grid in remote locations. But if a crystallized picture of what we lost can lead to some reclaiming, that would help us and our planet.
I'm guessing that Ryan sees Homo Sapiens Sapiens as inherently inclined to seek a deeper reality than just our sensate existence. Early man may have found this in personal experience with psychoactive natural substances, rather than through an organized set of beliefs. That's where I see the connection with that part of the book.
Wait a minute...I just tried to make a loaf of Ezekiel bread. So I had to work with barley, a grain we domesticated/cultivated when we got civilized. If it weren't for barley we wouldn't have beer ("as we know it, Jim"). So is civilization really that bad?
If we're "hard wired" for cooperation and sharing, I think there is still plenty of that to be found, but maybe our "progress" does work against it's full expression. There probably won't be any mass movement of small communities to live off the grid in remote locations. But if a crystallized picture of what we lost can lead to some reclaiming, that would help us and our planet.
I'm guessing that Ryan sees Homo Sapiens Sapiens as inherently inclined to seek a deeper reality than just our sensate existence. Early man may have found this in personal experience with psychoactive natural substances, rather than through an organized set of beliefs. That's where I see the connection with that part of the book.
Wait a minute...I just tried to make a loaf of Ezekiel bread. So I had to work with barley, a grain we domesticated/cultivated when we got civilized. If it weren't for barley we wouldn't have beer ("as we know it, Jim"). So is civilization really that bad?
colorfulleo92's review against another edition
2.0
2.5 stars, some parts where interesting to know his viewpoint on but I feelt the book rather ranty and like a lot of people have said, that the author have cherry picked things that fits his stand point. It was an easy read and I did find it somewhat interesting, but I feel like someone could make better points about the subject
anotherpath's review against another edition
5.0
Whenever I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with an author's central premise, I tend to nitpick at nearly ANYTHING that irritates me within the book. I hold my allies to a higher standard than my enemies!
This book is a twenty year body of work that is timely, necessary, and probably not influential enough to correct the wrongs that it half-heartedly seeks to. My qualms with the book are few and far between, and the only takeaway that sticks out is towards the end when he said Progressive politics tend to align with Hunter-Gatherer values. I disagree.
The books central invalid hangup is that it doesn't target Mammon (money) as THE problem with civilization, and instead gets hung up on the idea that equal pay for women means ancient people's social equity. It doesn't, and much of what progressives deem necessary for equity would have to be eschewed to return to balance with nature/life.
There's so much that the book has going for it! A genuine recommend.
Civilization means 4X the menstrual cycles for women. 2X the work for men and women, and for it, you lose access to your natural diet, your natural spiritual life, your community, sex and your health and sanity. In return we get Sephora and Toll Roads.
Let's hit the red fucking button and stop.
"Once we accept that all human beings are, in fact, equally human, it becomes clear that human nature offers little to help explain systematic cruelties common to civilizations but rare or nonexistent among foragers (subjugation of women, slavery, extreme disparities in wealth, and so on)."
"The popularity and persistence of scientific narratives often have more to do with how well they support dominant mythologies than with scientific veracity."
P.S. to the Goodreads community at large claiming this book had no scientific merit are guilty of the bastardization of the term. The work is inundated with study after study, and journal reference after reference. In addition to that, I think Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is the only body of work I've ever read with a larger pool of citations. Hobbes, Boethius, Pinker, Harris, Dawkins, and a consortium of others are cited destructively, others like Diamond, Harrari, and their ilk come out looking clean. If you're not familiar with all these bodies of work, ONLY THEN, could you think what you think.
This book is a twenty year body of work that is timely, necessary, and probably not influential enough to correct the wrongs that it half-heartedly seeks to. My qualms with the book are few and far between, and the only takeaway that sticks out is towards the end when he said Progressive politics tend to align with Hunter-Gatherer values. I disagree.
The books central invalid hangup is that it doesn't target Mammon (money) as THE problem with civilization, and instead gets hung up on the idea that equal pay for women means ancient people's social equity. It doesn't, and much of what progressives deem necessary for equity would have to be eschewed to return to balance with nature/life.
There's so much that the book has going for it! A genuine recommend.
Civilization means 4X the menstrual cycles for women. 2X the work for men and women, and for it, you lose access to your natural diet, your natural spiritual life, your community, sex and your health and sanity. In return we get Sephora and Toll Roads.
Let's hit the red fucking button and stop.
"Once we accept that all human beings are, in fact, equally human, it becomes clear that human nature offers little to help explain systematic cruelties common to civilizations but rare or nonexistent among foragers (subjugation of women, slavery, extreme disparities in wealth, and so on)."
"The popularity and persistence of scientific narratives often have more to do with how well they support dominant mythologies than with scientific veracity."
P.S. to the Goodreads community at large claiming this book had no scientific merit are guilty of the bastardization of the term. The work is inundated with study after study, and journal reference after reference. In addition to that, I think Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy is the only body of work I've ever read with a larger pool of citations. Hobbes, Boethius, Pinker, Harris, Dawkins, and a consortium of others are cited destructively, others like Diamond, Harrari, and their ilk come out looking clean. If you're not familiar with all these bodies of work, ONLY THEN, could you think what you think.