Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Doctor Hammer's avatar

Excellent review! I will have to pick up a copy of this over the winter.

I find myself wondering if the best way to think of these sorts of society's isn't state/nonstate, or agrarian/hunter gatherer, but rather by why percentage of their population is engaged in what sorts of roles. Every society does a bit of everything, but agrarian societies are far more focused on farming with only a relatively few people who make their living hunting predominantly, etc. That leaves the state as a sort of growing profession; in early stages almost no one can make a living doing "state things", but over time it becomes more and more possible. The state things people do are in some cases beneficial, and in other cases parasitic. In effect, the size of the state partially measures how many stationary bandits the society can support, because they are a decidedly mixed bag.

It also raises interesting questions when one thinks of the classes of jobs that change over time to become more dominant: hunter gatherers give way to agriculturalists, agriculturalists give way to industrial workers, industrial workers to service/knowledge workers. Government workers grow along side the others without necessarily giving way, but at the same time the knowledge worker (or maybe managerial worker) seems like a sub-type of government worker. Maybe they give way to some other sort? What comes next?

Expand full comment
Ross Denton's avatar

This was really fun and interesting - great read. It reminds me in places of “The Dawn Of Everything”. The Post-Roman world example gives pause for thought - it would be interesting to know how differences in well-being track after different “collapses” over time. I imagine it becomes quite contextual on environmental, geographical, trade factors etc

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts