A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century: Evolution and the Challenges of Modern Life
4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars | 2,975 ratings
Price: 15.75
Last update: 09-09-2024
About this item
A provocative exploration of the tension between our evolutionary history and our modern woes - and what we can do about it.
We are living through the most prosperous age in all of human history, yet we are listless, divided, and miserable. Wealth and comfort are unparalleled, but our political landscape is unmoored, and rates of suicide, loneliness, and chronic illness continue to skyrocket. How do we explain the gap between these truths? And how should we respond?
For evolutionary biologists Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein, the cause of our troubles is clear: The accelerating rate of change in the modern world has outstripped the capacity of our brains and bodies to adapt. We evolved to live in clans, but today many people don’t even know their neighbors’ names. In our haste to discard outdated gender roles, we increasingly deny the flesh-and-blood realities of sex - and its ancient roots. The cognitive dissonance spawned by trying to live in a society we are not built for is killing us.
In this book, Heying and Weinstein draw on decades of their work teaching in college classrooms and exploring Earth’s most biodiverse ecosystems to confront today’s pressing social ills - from widespread sleep deprivation and dangerous diets to damaging parenting styles and backward education practices. Asking the questions many modern people are afraid to ask, A Hunter-Gatherer’s Guide to the 21st Century outlines a science-based worldview that will empower you to live a better, wiser life.
This audiobook includes a downloadable PDF containing illustrations and charts from the book.
PLEASE NOTE: When you purchase this title, the accompanying PDF will be available in your Audible Library along with the audio.
Top reviews from the United States
They tackle big questions about our species with clarity, wit, and the wide perspective of the evolutionary lens.
They see humans in the modern world as hyper-novel. They say: “ … humans are extraordinary well adapted to, and equipped for, change. But the rate of change itself is so rapid now that our brains, bodies, and social systems are perpetually out or sync. For millions of years, we lived among friends and extended families, but today many people don’t even know their neighbors’ names. Some of the most fundamental truths – like the fact of two sexes are increasingly dismissed as lies. The cognitive dissonance spawned by trying to live in a society that is changing faster than we can accommodate is turning us into people who cannot fend for ourselves. Simply put, it’s killing us.”
The authors claim, “if we don’t figure out how to grapple with the problem of accelerating novelty, humanity will perish, a victim of its success.”
They understand the need for a revolution to save the human species --- and they comprehend the ancient wisdom to let what works for humans, remain. They rightly observe that most revolutions make things worse ---- we need to respect traditions – such as religious belief and respect for ancient wisdom that informs us what works in our society. They quote the writer G. K. Chesterton who reminds us to be careful when we approach a fence --- we shouldn’t tear down the fence just because we don’t know why the fence is there.
Heying and Weinstein are wedded to first principles – assumptions that cannot be deduced from any other assumptions. They are aware of the naturalistic fallacy of what is or what is natural must be good --- a confusion of fact and value. What is, is not always what should be.
Heying and Weinstein propose practical guidelines for such important topics, and chapter titles as, “Ancient Bodies, Modern World;” “Medicine;” “Sex and Gender,” “Parenting;” “Becoming Adults;” “Culture and Consciousness,” Heying and Weinstein tell us much about their views of human nature informed by evolution.
The following are examples of the “Corrective Lens” offered at the end of each chapter:
• Become skeptical of novel solutions to ancient problems.
• Become someone who recognizes patterns about yourself.
• Move your body every day.
• Do not forget that food is social lubrication for humans.
• Develop a ritual in advance of sleep.
• Avoid sex without commitment.
• Do not succumb to social pressure to embrace easy sex.
• Do not helicopter or snowplow your children.
• Be the kind of person you want your children to be.
• Civilization needs citizens capable of openness and inquiry.
• Always be learning.
• Get over your bigotry.
• Learn how to give useful critique without backing the other person into a corner.
• Be barefoot as often as possible.
• Sit around more campfires.
For millennia, humans have been sitting around campfires, sharing ideas, bonding with each other and solving problems.
I welcome the opportunity to sit around a campfire with Drs. Weinstein and Heying, college students, and a group of ideological diverse academics from a variety of disciplines to ask questions, discuss disagreements, and digest more intellectual, gourmet food found in this excellent book.
Because I’m a psychologist with 45 years of experience, I would challenge the authors allergy to psychiatric medications. I’ve witnessed many children, adolescents and adults benefit from these medications, sometimes preventing suicide, major depression, academic and job failures. It’s difficult to get people to take 8 days of antibiotics; and more difficult to get people to take daily psychiatric drugs unless these medicines help. Psychiatric medications treat our “hard drive” and talking therapy treats our “software.” Both talking therapy and pharmacotherapy are often essential for treating mental distress. Humans have the most flexible software of any animal on the planet. A core deficit in our understanding of the mind is we have no clue how our material brain creates our sense of “I” - our sense of self.
I would like to know how these authors would square their pessimistic view of our world with the writings of psychologist Steven Pinker - “Enlightenment Now,” and the physician, the late Hans Rosling, co-author of, “Factfulness.” Both authors describe the tremendous progress we’ve made in the last 200 years such as reducing world poverty from 90% to 10%; increasing life span; reducing infectious diseases; and much more. Perhaps Pinker and Rosling would say even these brilliant evolutionary biologists are shaped by millions of years of evolution to adopt a negativity bias, keenly aware of threats to our species.
Don’t miss their Dark Horse podcasts.
To help keep my sanity in this world, I turn to another quote of G. K. Chesterton: “He is a sane man who can have tragedy in his heart and comedy in his head.”
It’s a fun, well-argued thesis and if you like Dark Horse Podcast (I do), you’ll love this. There are a lot of reviews at this point, so I’m adding only some random thoughts that I haven’t seen covered previously:
• The authors are, like any ‘enlightened’ 21C westerner, atheists, humanists, and materialists. Natural selection, of course, informs their worldview. A reader steeped in classical philosophy, or eastern/western theology & religion, however, will note with interest at how often the authors lapse involuntarily into quasi-religious or at least metaphysical language or illustrations to make their points.
o ‘We are embodied beings,’ the authors state at two junctures. Embodied, I understand: The physical world governed by chemistry/biology and physics/math is certainly the province of the evolutionary biologist. But the moment they say ‘Beings,’ in the sense that they use the word, I believe they are smuggling in a metaphysical principal from outside that physical universe. The mind-body problem is the bane of all materialist reductionists. In their hearts (!) I suspect most people are uncomfortable with Richard Dawkins dismissal, ‘consciousness is a make-believe concept.’ I’m more with Thomas Nagel: I think there are truths and realities that inform our beings yet are not reducible to empirical testing or observation.
o Next, the illustration of Chesterton’s fence, conveyed in the opening chapters and repeated throughout the book, seems ironic given Chesterton’s lifelong commitment to Christian apologetics. Religion, and Christianity specifically, was a fence he was arguing should remain in place. The authors might agree religion has utility (Bret said in a recent podcast certain ancient beliefs might be ‘metaphorically true while not literally true’) But notably Chesterton believed in the truth of a literal God that straddled the metaphysical and physical world, and thought that literal truth was essential to man’s behavior both individually and collectively, and also as it relates to man’s destiny and purpose. (Re: his ‘Orthodoxy.’)
o Finally, speaking of Destiny and Purpose, I get a strong sense that the authors ascribe to humans a higher calling or purpose that is not shared with our fellow organisms on earth. I find it hard to reconcile the idea that humankind ‘ought’ to preserve the planet, perpetuate its own species, or frankly, even act morally, within the confines of a purely material framework of existence. If we learned anything from Dawkins ‘The Selfish Gene,’ it is that at the level of basic biology, individual cells, genes or chromosomes don’t care about human happiness, well- being or even the success of our species. They care about their own success as organisms, and any sort of stable or dynamic emergent order that preserves their future will work as well as another. So once again, I can’t help but muse on what feels like an undercurrent of determinism or at least ‘purpose,’ implicit in Bret and Heather’s interpretation of what behaviors ‘ought’ to be. Read 'The Humanist Manifesto,' the 20C declaration of independence from the superstitions and constraints of legacy religion. It is 90% renunciation of religious tenets, and 10% assertions of humankind's responsibilities (which sound a like like the same goals religion had for us)
• My second category of observation is that Heather & Bret are at their weakest the further they stray from their training and specialty. I’m particularly unpersuaded by almost anything they assert relating to economics.
o The repeated worry about economics being dominated by externalities feels to me like a dangerous call for enhanced command-economy political infrastructure. Yes externalities comprise some of the most egregious collateral damage caused by the operation of markets. But they have a tendency to self- correct, and when they don’t, it is more likely to be the fault of an overly rigid regulatory or command-economy legal structure which blocks market corrections from occurring organically. Yes we need regulations. But regulators are notoriously less accountable than markets.
o The authors also indulge a sort of eschatological/Malthusian worry about the earth running out of resources. “Unbridled growth was a successful strategy for humans for a million years, but it isn’t now, and we need to retrain ourselves to follow another prime directive that uses fewer resources” is a paraphrase. A two-fold reaction: Forecasts that we are running out of resources are perennial themes of hand-wringing sociologists forever. While logic always seems to suggest that ‘eventually they’ll be right,’ history shows us that economics is incredibly dynamic, and constantly responding to new challenges in ways that are literally un-forecastable. A hint as to one solution to the authors’ call to be content with fewer resources might be found in Andrew McAfee’s ‘More with Less.’ McAfee’s research claims that since the 1970’s a new phenomenon in human history has been unfolding: the slope of GDP growth grew steeper than the growth of resource consumption on a per capita basis. He gives many pedestrian examples, and indulges in a little futurism as well. But using his premise as a point of departure, it doesn’t take much imagination to see a future where human participation in the metaverse radically reduces our historical resource consumption patterns. The hundreds of millions of gamers playing Fortnight or WoW have big electric bills but are otherwise occupying themselves (and in the pay-to-play formats, actually working productively) while consuming close to zero other resources. Of course Heather and Bret would also decry a world where we were all plugged Matrix-like into life sustaining pods while we lived, loved, worked and played in a virtual reality. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too...