Cannibals and Kings by Marvin Harris.

Ophelia

This is the thread for the sidebar discussion of Cannibals and Kings, by Marvin Harris.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:18 am Post subject:

Camacho, did you know that Cannibals was published-- at least in the UK, in 1977?

This takes us way back-- in 1977 I was a high school student taking philosophy lessons (8 hours a week, all in two-hour periods!) and I've forgotten most of what the teacher talked about, but I remember there was a lot of anthropology, and he often quoted Margaret Meade.

Anyway, I don't mind the date, this is a field that I like and even if this book brought nothing new (which would be surprising) I would still enjoy reading it, and I've never had an opportunity to discuss anything in this field, so this is great.

I'll quote a few passages from Wiki.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:26 am Post subject:

Next, I'll mention the books I have read in this field (or similar fields).

Like many people, I have read Guns, Germs and Steel, and Collapse, by Jared Diamond. BT has discussed both, but that was before I joined.
Those were good, but my all-time favourite in this field is a book by an American historian which I think attracted less attention than Jared's books:

The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, by David Landes: an excellent historian, a very cultivated man -- among other things he is bilingual in English and French, I saw him on television before the book was published and I was really impressed... anyway, first class author and book.

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:33 am Post subject:

I wasn't even born yet!

It seems like anthropology books written during this time period put quite a bit of weight in animal activity, which it seems is something that hasn't changed much in my opinion. I expect this book to be packed with, "The monkeys of this region do this and that is why we probably do that."

It's hard to find a book that is scientifically correct, well written, and entertaining that has such huge potential for bias but supposedly this is one of them. We'll see. Like I said a long time ago, I read Robert Audrey's social contract and it was written at about the same time; it was food for my garbage can.

I guess it's a good compliment and a different approach to Shubin's DNA and fossils to explain why we are who we are. It definitely is more philosophical in that it requires more imagination than pure research.

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:36 am Post subject:

Do you have a camera in my room? I just started reading Collapse yesterday. Surprised

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 8:51 am Post subject:

Yes, I know some of us hadn't been born yet when Cannibals was published, my "us" was a general "us".

You're right about the criteria you give as for choosing a book, this is why Jared's books were so popular, they fit all criteria.

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:08 am Post subject:

I just read Chapter one and I am super impressed.

I know it's healthy to read about different points of view from your own but Harris shares all of my thoughts on the issues he sets forth in the first chapter. What a chapter!!!

He covers a lot of ground, very rapidly, and over some pretty hazardous terrain, too. He challenges the church, is pro-abortion, calls for population control rather than intensifying production (I can see a parallel with Collapse here! Very exciting), and he also somewhat sides with Malthus (still extremely controversial)! WOW!

I think I'm going to like this book a lot!

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 9:24 am Post subject:

It's interesting how both Collapse and Cannibals bring up agricultural intensification as a way in which over-populated societies deplete the earth's resources. How man, in the search for more food, plants crops in exceedingly marginal land and realizes a decline in production efficiency, while the soil becomes exhausted (decreasing future yields).

The question of why agricultural intensification shows up in both books has to do with each book's premise. Collapse serves to explain the rise and fall of civilizations and Cannibals serves to show cultural behavior.

It's amazing how things like this are known but still aren't widely accepted.

I guess Harris will show us that the lack of awareness is the reason that some societies have progressed their technology while others that are aware, haven't. Necessity is the mother of all invention and so the society which needs no new technology to improve farming practices will not implement or invent any and the society which desperately needs it, will invent, and progress technologically.

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 10:35 am Post subject:

Chapter 2

Murders in eden really shouldn't strike anyone as a new development. Infanticide, geronticide, and abortion have all been common features of humanity's past.

I think the only judgment that can be made here is that other methods of population control such as contraceptives are far more preferable to murder. Nomadic women can't be expected to carry more than one child over almost 5000 miles over a four year period. Killing a child is sometimes a necessity to maintain a sustainable and prosperous way of life for these people.

I'm also impressed with the health and vigor of our forefathers. During the paleolithic period from 30,000 to 10,000 B.C. were people with an average height equal to men in the 1960's. They also had a life expectancy that equaled some in the 1900's. This is amazing considering the lack of modern medicine they had.

Harris owes this to their diet which was extremely rich in proteins, something that poor agricultural societies lack. These ancient humans worked less, spent more time at play and crafting, and ate a far richer diet. They even produced pieces of art that Harris says could not be duplicated (1977 - I don't know if they can be duplicated today)

All this from population control. There was no fight for food. There was an abundance of food and the skeletons show that these people were extremely well nourished.

I don't eat steak everyday, do you? I bet these people did. Fish, meats from different animals.... it was all there. Free buffet 24/7. It's not like that today. The cost of meat and fish is pretty pricey.

I like how he talks about how labor intensive agriculture is when hunting only takes about 3 hours out of the day, with an additional 3 hours for every other chore which includes making new spears, nets, and preparing the animal for dinner. You have to admit that the hunting would be 'fun' and 'exciting' and the other chores would be work. I would say that you only 'worked' three hours out of the day. Compare this with the a$$hole farmer that works 60 hours a week. That is amazing.

Why? Because there aren't enough animals to sustain the population and so people must farm. That is the price of more people! More people equals less freedom. We are all slaves to over-population.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 1:58 pm Post subject:

Chapter 1.

I wonder whether we are going to have a funny thread going to and fro from one chapter to another... this can be a problem in side-bar discussions. I have tried to explore this with the ladies in Wicked but there is no solution.

Population regulation. I remember you mentioned this before, but how do you imagine this reduction could take place?

-In developping countries, governments will go on with the methods we have: trying to develop contraception and hope that people will voluntarily decide to use it.
If there is economic progress and those societies develop the way western societies have, they will naturally tend to be satisfied with fewer children (2 or 3) . I think this is one thing the consumer society does for the planet: as people go into consumer mode and the modern way of life they feel they can afford fewer children (you mentioned the example of Japan).

This is the best case scenario, otherwise there are countries like Iran where governments don't want to limit the number of children.

This, however, is a way of slowing down the increase of population, not a way of decreasing our numbers.

- What about western democracies? Would you want people to have fewer than two children?
The only country that does that is a dictatorship.

In Europe, Italy for example, many families follow the same pattern as Japan voluntarily.
What if they don't, what would you do if you were a politician?

My take on this is that politicians will never want to do anything, it will be voluntary limitation or nothing (and I can develop it if necessary!).


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT