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!).

President Camacho · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject:

I think putting a financial burden on parents is one way in which everyone would "naturally" have less children.

This would be the same situation in which the nomadic woman would choose not to have 2 kids because she would be unable to carry both of them 5,000 miles in 4 years. It would be impossible for her... the costs are too high! Instead she can 'afford' to carry one child and will only have one child.

Today, both men and women can share this burden through an increase in taxes and a decrease in public social services. This will also help take the burden off of those people who don't have kids.

I pay taxes for everyone else's child to get public education. Is that really fair (not to mention maintaining the judicial system for child cases, law enforcement for juvenile delinquents, costs of orphanages...the list goes on and on)? If I had a say, I would vote that the parents of the child pay a substantially larger amount than I should be FORCED to. After all, it is THEIR child, not mine. It is their burden and their responsibility. You know how I know? Because I can't discipline their child when it's yelling and screaming while I'm trying to watch a movie.

A third child could incur a major tax increase which would limit the amount of children to two in most cases. It would be a flat tax too, not this AMT nonsense with loopholes.

For those concerned about the rich having more children, I think they'll find that the rich don't want them!

Now, suppose everyone gets free health care. A HUGE financial burden to having kids is removed. Now, give everyone who has a baby 5,000 towards college... another burden removed! The result is that more people will have more kids because the costs have been decreased. This can't be allowed to happen without other taxes put in place specifically for parents. The taxes will never pass after free health care passes.

Wow, I re-read this and it sounds like a total rant Laughing

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject:

Chapter 1.

page 15: "The most widely used method of population control during much of human history was probably some form of female infanticide."

I suppose he guessed this by analyzing information about infanticide in modern times. I'm not going to go into morals here, you wrote, and this is very clear to me, that the conditions were such that they obviously had no choice.

I had read about this suggestion of infanticide in the past, but I hadn't thought "female" particularly-- and yet how else could it be. It makes sense that if a hundred different human groups that had never met each other decided in they all had 10 surplus babies, all ten (or nine out of ten) would be found to be female every time.
Unless you think of itinerant groups. As you said, the woman could only carry one baby when on the move, so the second baby would be killed, so logically regardless of its sex.
Unless... could we imagine (this is going to be a horror thread!) a reasoning like "Well, the eldest baby is a girl, but the new baby is a boy, so..." ? It sounds unlikely.

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 2:52 pm Post subject:

Elderly parents in Indian tribes.

When I was in primary school one day our teacher read to us a story about a group of migrating Indians (in the past) who abandoned their elderly parents (probably in their forties) when they were on the march and explained how and why it was done, with a particular organization (leaving a fire and food for a day...)
I was stunned of course (mostly because the parents accepted the situation) but I understood why they thought it had to be done, so that the group could survive.

Later I kept returning to that story (and other similar ones).
Why leave a fire and food if the person was going to die of cold and hunger anyway? So that the person who left felt less guilty? Why prolong the situation for one more day with the food?
Yet it made sense that if humans felt they had to do something like this, they would do it with a ritual, so that both sides would know that they had not been careless and that filial duties had been observed.

What I'm getting at is that in one books I read that mentioned this custom in passing, it seemed that those cruel customs applied more to elderly females than elderly males. The male died in battle or hunting, or kept his status until his death, and then his wife lost her status and was turned out or abandoned.
Have you ever read anything about this?

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 3:18 pm Post subject:

Ophelia · Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject:

Chapter 2.

This is definitely an excellent book; it completes things I remember from
The Wealth and Poverty of Nations.
Congratulations on your choice Camacho!


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT