Recently I read Scott Alexander’s review of the book, Against the Grain:
The basic premise is that the cultivation of wheat and other grains enabled (and was promoted by) government oppression because grains were more easily measured/taxed/confiscated than other food resources. Along with evidence that the rise of agriculture led to a decrease in average human nutrition, this presents a an interesting perspective on human history, namely:
The rise of human civilization was bad for individual humans
With this in mind, consider the curse of Adam after being expelled from the Garden of Eden:
“…cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
I am not the first one to suggest that the Fall of Man in the Bible refers to the Neolithic (i.e., agricultural) revolution, but it’s something I am starting to take seriously.
I have mentioned before that I like to divide history into three phases:
- Hunter-gatherer
- Agricultural
- Technological
So perhaps originally, the Fall of Man referred to the transition from the first phase to the second phase. But what I would like to point out is that there may be a comparable Fall associated with the transition from an Agricultural to a Technological society (which is still happening). Here is a modern version of the scripture:
“…cursed is the technology for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou manipulate information all the days of thy life;
Bills also and debt shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt earn the money of the global economy;
In the labor of thy mind shalt thou earn money, till thou losest they sanity; for out of ideas wast thou taken: for information thou art, and unto information shalt thou return.”
I am also not the first person to suggest that modern technology comes with some downside. Some, like Theodore Kaczynski (i.e., the unabomber) decided that there was no hope for the “industrial-technological system,” writing:
“The industrial-technological system may survive … only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine…There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.”
And although I don’t agree with these conclusions (that we should strive to hasten the end of modern civilization), Ted Kaczynski was probably more intelligent than I am, so there might be something to learn from his ideology.
So back to Against the Grain. The main thesis of the book (at least according to the review mentioned above) is that grain made it easier for tyrants to turn people into slaves. Clearly there is potential for modern technology to be used for sinister purposes as well, and life under some modern tyrants is probably pretty similar to that of a Neolithic peasant.
But agricultural Tyranny isn’t really the prototypical society in the Information Age. That honor goes to liberal democracy based on capitalism (with some form of welfare state). And Ted Kaczynski wasn’t sending bombs to bring down the government of North Korea.
I was raised to think that the American way of life was the pinnacle of civilization. And in many ways, I still think so. Honestly, my own life has been fairly privileged, and probably compares very favorably with people from other times and places. Still, if the rise of civilization can be bad for individual humans, it raises the possibility that living in the peak of civilization isn’t the best way for individuals to live.
I have discussed these issues at length elsewhere, but one way of framing the challenge of living in modern society is that it challenges our faith and our family. Modern life challenges faith because things change so fast that culture can barely keep up. We can’t just adopt the beliefs and lifestyles of our parents because they grew up in a different world. Humans are built to withstand a certain pace of adaptation, but living during a period of rapidly changing culture creates a sense of existential anxiety. Family is challenged by the fact that it is often more economically efficient to make a living by interacting with strangers. But when we don’t need to rely on those close to use to make a living, we are less inclined to invest in relationships. Our brain subconsciously picks up on the lack of community and reinforces our sense of anxiety.
In other words, even in a best case scenario, the modern world undermines our psychological well being due to fundamental aspects of technological and economic growth.
