Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.69 AVERAGE
3.69 AVERAGE
Recommended by the renowned Robert Sapolsky, this essay is a fascinating read, particularly because it dismantles some of the ad hoc arguments of psychological-evolutionary reductionism (calling for greater caution from this hypothetical science) and serves as a counter-response to the biased opinions of Steven Pinker on the matter. Pinker himself admits to favoring his own perspective because he doesn’t want anyone to believe that a return to the past would be better, implicitly revealing his bias.
While Fry does not significantly expand our knowledge of hunter-gatherer societies (many essays have already tackled this topic), he does clarify key distinctions between different types of "primitive" societies, elaborates on forms of social aggression, and discusses certain methods of mediation. Although he is impeccable in demonstrating the "absence" of peace in gathering and tribal societies, his argument weakens when addressing the deeper roots of warfare in complex societies (ideologies, mass irrationalism, etc.).
In conclusion, this is an anthropological work well worth reading. Contrary to what some might argue, it avoids the error of ignoring that one homicide per 100 people is still a high number of deaths. In fact, what Fry avoids is the "ecological fallacy" that so many fall into (with Pinker being the most famous example), but not a devoted antropologists. The matter is more complex (and "incommensurable"). Just as you cannot equate a prisoner sentenced to life with a galley slave, suffering cannot be lightly quantified, either directly or indirectly. You cannot reduce the human factor to a mere number. Is the death of one hunter out of a hundred (due to adultery) comparable to the death of 10,000 soldiers in a country of one million (due to a war)? Further more, are the consequences, and subsequent suffering, truly similar?
While Fry does not significantly expand our knowledge of hunter-gatherer societies (many essays have already tackled this topic), he does clarify key distinctions between different types of "primitive" societies, elaborates on forms of social aggression, and discusses certain methods of mediation. Although he is impeccable in demonstrating the "absence" of peace in gathering and tribal societies, his argument weakens when addressing the deeper roots of warfare in complex societies (ideologies, mass irrationalism, etc.).
In conclusion, this is an anthropological work well worth reading. Contrary to what some might argue, it avoids the error of ignoring that one homicide per 100 people is still a high number of deaths. In fact, what Fry avoids is the "ecological fallacy" that so many fall into (with Pinker being the most famous example), but not a devoted antropologists. The matter is more complex (and "incommensurable"). Just as you cannot equate a prisoner sentenced to life with a galley slave, suffering cannot be lightly quantified, either directly or indirectly. You cannot reduce the human factor to a mere number. Is the death of one hunter out of a hundred (due to adultery) comparable to the death of 10,000 soldiers in a country of one million (due to a war)? Further more, are the consequences, and subsequent suffering, truly similar?
informative
reflective
medium-paced
I found this book fascinating and very readable, despite being an academic book in an area I'm not familiar with. I loved learning about the various cultures around the world, and their different methods for conflict resolution. The diversity of human beings is amazing.
Fry's view is that we have tended to over emphasize humans' capacity for violence, while under emphasizing our capacity for non-violent conflict resolution and peaceful living. We have emphasized the qualities we might have in common with (more violent) chimpanzees, while largely ignoring the qualities we might have in common with (more peaceful) bonobos, which are just as closely related to us. We have emphasized the war and violence in our history, while largely ignoring (or failing to see) the apparently peaceful simple hunter-gatherer societies of our more distant evolutionary past. (Not to mention the fact that, even now, most of us manage to get along, resolving our differences, every single day — without resorting to violence.)
Fry challenges assumptions that have been repeated in the academic literature and in mainstream society, about the innate violent tendencies of humans, and shows how such assumptions have, in many cases, coloured scholars' interpretation and/or presentation of the data.
A wonderful book, which left me feeling optimistic about humans' capacity for peace.
There's a review of the book here, as well as more info on a world without war:
http://www.afww.org/index.html
Fry's view is that we have tended to over emphasize humans' capacity for violence, while under emphasizing our capacity for non-violent conflict resolution and peaceful living. We have emphasized the qualities we might have in common with (more violent) chimpanzees, while largely ignoring the qualities we might have in common with (more peaceful) bonobos, which are just as closely related to us. We have emphasized the war and violence in our history, while largely ignoring (or failing to see) the apparently peaceful simple hunter-gatherer societies of our more distant evolutionary past. (Not to mention the fact that, even now, most of us manage to get along, resolving our differences, every single day — without resorting to violence.)
Fry challenges assumptions that have been repeated in the academic literature and in mainstream society, about the innate violent tendencies of humans, and shows how such assumptions have, in many cases, coloured scholars' interpretation and/or presentation of the data.
A wonderful book, which left me feeling optimistic about humans' capacity for peace.
There's a review of the book here, as well as more info on a world without war:
http://www.afww.org/index.html
It was ok, the arguments were not too bad but honestly not much substance in it. For the last few chapters the author did not even bother to rephrase the thing when he repeats himself.