I've been reading "Guns, Germs and Steel" by Jared Diamond. It's quite interesting. It's a bit different than I expected, but in a good way, actually.
Essentially, his basic thesis is that certain traits of geography and climate have lent themselves to giving certain peoples a better chance at achieving certain technologies sooner than others...
Another thing that he talks about (and what's on my mind lately, and is something I've already thought about due to certain of my primitivist tendencies) is the rise of social organization due to size of the society. From bands to tribes to chieftains to states... The move from hunter-gatherers to farming...
One thing that he hasn't (so far) speculated upon is what sort of organization may occur in the future. Is the "state" the final word? Is it lying in some eternal stasis, beyond which there is nothing else? Is that why it's called a state?
I've always sorta theorized that the state is called a state because it's purpose is to perpetuate itself as a static entity. It doesn't want to change. It is monolithic.
More on this later.
Essentially, his basic thesis is that certain traits of geography and climate have lent themselves to giving certain peoples a better chance at achieving certain technologies sooner than others...
Another thing that he talks about (and what's on my mind lately, and is something I've already thought about due to certain of my primitivist tendencies) is the rise of social organization due to size of the society. From bands to tribes to chieftains to states... The move from hunter-gatherers to farming...
One thing that he hasn't (so far) speculated upon is what sort of organization may occur in the future. Is the "state" the final word? Is it lying in some eternal stasis, beyond which there is nothing else? Is that why it's called a state?
I've always sorta theorized that the state is called a state because it's purpose is to perpetuate itself as a static entity. It doesn't want to change. It is monolithic.
Tags: