Scan barcode
ihorbook's review against another edition
4.0
Fun to read and very interesting (just as the earlier book by Morris, Why the West Rules). But the last chapter, full of geopolitical punditry and futurology, ruins it all a bit. Morris is much better at telling the past than at trying to foretell the future.
dkpnw's review against another edition
3.0
I found it eurocentric and a bit reductionist, but these flaws are tempered by Morris' general poise and consistently high-quality arguments. Very eye-opening.
brannigan's review against another edition
3.0
An engaging, concise look at human warfare through the ages, but the author's central premise that wars can be classified into "productive" and "non-productive" smacks of post-hoc rationalisation and hand-waving. Also the last chapter kind of dissolves into a long-form Economist article. A nice try and a decent read, but it offers very little expansion on Hobbes, Pinker and Diamond.
markgray260's review against another edition
5.0
This is the first book by Ian Morris that I have read and it was the best book I have read for a long time. Epic in scale and breadth with a disturbing but well argued central thesis that ultimately makes sense. I have just bought 2 of his other books and am hoping they they are just as good .
albert_04's review against another edition
4.0
At first glance, the question 'is war good?' can be easily answered with a strong "no" considering that it is all about death and chaos. But Morris overturned and critically re-explore this common question using historical data and evidences presenting the different impacts and outcomes of major wars throughout history. Of course, we alreay know how bad is war, but Morris asks, do we all know what is it good on wars?
This is the central question of the book that Morris extensively answered. Its extensiveness is not simple and straightforward mere presentation of facts and arguments or list of good things about war; but instead, Morris journeyed to the long-term timelines of history and interdisciplinary evidences of archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology.
From the ancient past to the present, Morris' pace is incredibly patterned to answer how wars shaped the world. He also included an extra chapter exploring the chimpanzees (which I barely read because of its biological/scientifical approach). According to Morris, war can be productive and counter-productive, and includes certain chapters presenting its distinctions. Most of us are already aware on how wars can be counter-productive as it destroys peace and harmony. But productive wars, in the long run, can be beneficial. By detailing the benefits of war in building civilizations (Roman, Han, etc.), "producing bigger and better societies", declining violence, making "stronger governments, which have imposed peace and created the preconditions for prosperity", promoting military innovation and revolution, and etc.; there is indeed good at war. According to Morris, even though everything in war is paradoxical, (e.g. "using violence in war to lowered the payoffs from using further violence") war has played a part on where we are today.
~
I just felt that at some point, some of the book's contents are disturbing, especially the portions on how Morris oversimplified the hundred millions of death and so on through wars (specifically World war 1 & 2) to mere figures and percentages. He even said that their deaths and miseries were not in vain (knowing that the two World Wars killed millions of innocent civilians and soldiers) because after what Morris called "the most productive war of history—WWII", the world became a better and safer place (which is arguably true). Morris' main argument that violent deaths reduced tremendously from a 10-20% during the Stone Age to merely 1% on our present society also, I think, not a compelling figure to show how war can be good, considering that when those numbers are translated, the 10-20% of Stone Age societies are only a handful numbers considering they are small societies, while the 1% of today may be thousands or millions considering that we are today composed of billions of humans. Yes, the violence decreased and peace and prosperity increased, and the 'beast' on us are caged because of the evolutionary and historical changes, but it is just too vague to think that it is all because of wars.
The last chapter explores the future of war. Reading this part made me remember Yuval Noah Harrari's books hypothesizing the future with biological engineering, robotics, AI, and other stuffs. I expected that the book will end with a compelling and straightforward answer on what is it good on wars, but instead Morris explores the present and future scenarios of wars and how will it might come. There is also a short overview on the rise and fall of Pax Americana or the US' globocop, that will tremendously shape our future. Morris end his book not with a justification of waging wars (even productive wars), because even though wars uncomfortably—albeit not entirely—moved us to where we are today, productive wars can reach its culminating point at which the war's produced success can deliver tremendous disasters. We also need to acknowledge that there are a lot of unknown unknowns, and wars from the past will be entirely different on the wars of today or in the future.
~
Conclusively, I do enjoy this book. It is like reading a world history book focusing on wars. So even though one may not agree to Morris' claims and arguments, there are A LOT of historical information we can learn throughout this book.
This is the central question of the book that Morris extensively answered. Its extensiveness is not simple and straightforward mere presentation of facts and arguments or list of good things about war; but instead, Morris journeyed to the long-term timelines of history and interdisciplinary evidences of archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology.
From the ancient past to the present, Morris' pace is incredibly patterned to answer how wars shaped the world. He also included an extra chapter exploring the chimpanzees (which I barely read because of its biological/scientifical approach). According to Morris, war can be productive and counter-productive, and includes certain chapters presenting its distinctions. Most of us are already aware on how wars can be counter-productive as it destroys peace and harmony. But productive wars, in the long run, can be beneficial. By detailing the benefits of war in building civilizations (Roman, Han, etc.), "producing bigger and better societies", declining violence, making "stronger governments, which have imposed peace and created the preconditions for prosperity", promoting military innovation and revolution, and etc.; there is indeed good at war. According to Morris, even though everything in war is paradoxical, (e.g. "using violence in war to lowered the payoffs from using further violence") war has played a part on where we are today.
~
I just felt that at some point, some of the book's contents are disturbing, especially the portions on how Morris oversimplified the hundred millions of death and so on through wars (specifically World war 1 & 2) to mere figures and percentages. He even said that their deaths and miseries were not in vain (knowing that the two World Wars killed millions of innocent civilians and soldiers) because after what Morris called "the most productive war of history—WWII", the world became a better and safer place (which is arguably true). Morris' main argument that violent deaths reduced tremendously from a 10-20% during the Stone Age to merely 1% on our present society also, I think, not a compelling figure to show how war can be good, considering that when those numbers are translated, the 10-20% of Stone Age societies are only a handful numbers considering they are small societies, while the 1% of today may be thousands or millions considering that we are today composed of billions of humans. Yes, the violence decreased and peace and prosperity increased, and the 'beast' on us are caged because of the evolutionary and historical changes, but it is just too vague to think that it is all because of wars.
The last chapter explores the future of war. Reading this part made me remember Yuval Noah Harrari's books hypothesizing the future with biological engineering, robotics, AI, and other stuffs. I expected that the book will end with a compelling and straightforward answer on what is it good on wars, but instead Morris explores the present and future scenarios of wars and how will it might come. There is also a short overview on the rise and fall of Pax Americana or the US' globocop, that will tremendously shape our future. Morris end his book not with a justification of waging wars (even productive wars), because even though wars uncomfortably—albeit not entirely—moved us to where we are today, productive wars can reach its culminating point at which the war's produced success can deliver tremendous disasters. We also need to acknowledge that there are a lot of unknown unknowns, and wars from the past will be entirely different on the wars of today or in the future.
~
Conclusively, I do enjoy this book. It is like reading a world history book focusing on wars. So even though one may not agree to Morris' claims and arguments, there are A LOT of historical information we can learn throughout this book.
socraticgadfly's review against another edition
2.0
Provocative book with logical holes the size of Swiss cheese
Squarely in the Pinker tradition, Ian Morris claims not only that we’re getting better all the time, but that “productive war” is a large reason why.
First, there’s the old “correlation is not necessarily causation” issue. It’s a huge one here. Human self-domestication, on both physical and cultural evolution, since the rise of the Age of Agriculture, is more likely to be more of, or more important of, a cause. On the physical evolution toward domesticity, it may not happen as quickly as with the Russian red foxes of Dmitri Belyaev and students but surely it happens. There’s good evidence for it.
And, since war is cultural, there’s surely other cultural evolution angles besides warfare that have had more importance in reducing human violence, even if we don’t know what they are. Again, though, agriculture and the forced sedentary nature of it is surely one factor, and Morris admits as much by noting that “non-productive war” was generally by nomads.
Second, while he notes that “productive war” has been less productive, to put it mildly, for the losers, especially nomad losers who got “cages,” he mever really wrestles with how much less productive, to use his words, it was.
He is definitely at fault here, like Pinker. Both likely overrate the violence of hunter-gatherer cultures, and ignore how "caging" (to use Morris' own word) of modern hunter-gatherers on largely "unproductive" (from agriculturalist POV) land increases that violence vis-a-vis pre-10,000 BCE hunter-gatherers.
Third, for making such expansive claims, he never even tries, other than death rates (and note what I said above about correlation and causation) to do a measurable explanatory framework.
Fourth, Morris ignores the issue of state monopolies on violence outside of war. Policing within nation states, as far as use of violence, is likely more “productive” in the way he means than war is. Here, he goes beyond even Pinker, who does take this into account.
Fifth, Morris has logical errors elsewhere. He talks about how the big testes of chimps are probably due in large part to sperm competition, and places this in the context of violence between males. He then notes bonobos have the same size of testes, and tries to claim sperm competition is the same for them. Likely not. Likely, being a Pinkerian, he’s latched on to an ev psych “explanation.”
I was on the 2/3 star borderline. Had its overall ranking here been a 3.5, it maybe might have gotten a third star from me. But at a 4 overall? No chance.
Squarely in the Pinker tradition, Ian Morris claims not only that we’re getting better all the time, but that “productive war” is a large reason why.
First, there’s the old “correlation is not necessarily causation” issue. It’s a huge one here. Human self-domestication, on both physical and cultural evolution, since the rise of the Age of Agriculture, is more likely to be more of, or more important of, a cause. On the physical evolution toward domesticity, it may not happen as quickly as with the Russian red foxes of Dmitri Belyaev and students but surely it happens. There’s good evidence for it.
And, since war is cultural, there’s surely other cultural evolution angles besides warfare that have had more importance in reducing human violence, even if we don’t know what they are. Again, though, agriculture and the forced sedentary nature of it is surely one factor, and Morris admits as much by noting that “non-productive war” was generally by nomads.
Second, while he notes that “productive war” has been less productive, to put it mildly, for the losers, especially nomad losers who got “cages,” he mever really wrestles with how much less productive, to use his words, it was.
He is definitely at fault here, like Pinker. Both likely overrate the violence of hunter-gatherer cultures, and ignore how "caging" (to use Morris' own word) of modern hunter-gatherers on largely "unproductive" (from agriculturalist POV) land increases that violence vis-a-vis pre-10,000 BCE hunter-gatherers.
Third, for making such expansive claims, he never even tries, other than death rates (and note what I said above about correlation and causation) to do a measurable explanatory framework.
Fourth, Morris ignores the issue of state monopolies on violence outside of war. Policing within nation states, as far as use of violence, is likely more “productive” in the way he means than war is. Here, he goes beyond even Pinker, who does take this into account.
Fifth, Morris has logical errors elsewhere. He talks about how the big testes of chimps are probably due in large part to sperm competition, and places this in the context of violence between males. He then notes bonobos have the same size of testes, and tries to claim sperm competition is the same for them. Likely not. Likely, being a Pinkerian, he’s latched on to an ev psych “explanation.”
I was on the 2/3 star borderline. Had its overall ranking here been a 3.5, it maybe might have gotten a third star from me. But at a 4 overall? No chance.
cwebb's review against another edition
4.0
Krieg ist gut! Zumindest wenn man auf die Anzahl der gewaltsamen Tode schaut. Das ist die Conclusio von Ian Morris in diesem Buch. Zwar sorgen Kriege für kurzzeitig höhere Raten, aber danach sinken sie dauerhaft ab. Und das mit jedem Krieg.
Das mag nicht intuitiv sein, manche mögen sich diesem Argument aus Verblendung ganz versperren, aber die würden das Buch ja eh nicht angreifen, könnte es doch ihr Weltbild zerstören. Da bleiben sie lieber in ihrer Blase.
Alle anderen bekommen ein gut lesbares Buch mit spannenden Aussagen und Futter zum Nachdenken.
Da es doch ein Wälzer ist und man nicht immer durchgezogen wird, "nur" 4/5.
Das mag nicht intuitiv sein, manche mögen sich diesem Argument aus Verblendung ganz versperren, aber die würden das Buch ja eh nicht angreifen, könnte es doch ihr Weltbild zerstören. Da bleiben sie lieber in ihrer Blase.
Alle anderen bekommen ein gut lesbares Buch mit spannenden Aussagen und Futter zum Nachdenken.
Da es doch ein Wälzer ist und man nicht immer durchgezogen wird, "nur" 4/5.
doctorvortex's review against another edition
4.0
"Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Or in English, if you want peace, prepare for war.
In around 500 pages, the author give us a tour around human history.
Showing how in every step of the way, war has been, and continues to be, very important. Not only for the creation of wealth or technological advances, but for the safety of the individual in each of these civilizations.
I have to admit he has a point, and the Leviathan seems like a necessary evil most of the time.
The question remains, how do we go from here?.
Or in English, if you want peace, prepare for war.
In around 500 pages, the author give us a tour around human history.
Showing how in every step of the way, war has been, and continues to be, very important. Not only for the creation of wealth or technological advances, but for the safety of the individual in each of these civilizations.
I have to admit he has a point, and the Leviathan seems like a necessary evil most of the time.
The question remains, how do we go from here?.