9 ms·

“The Dawn of Everything” explores how human beings once lived together

63 points by Thevet 5y ago

throwawayay02 5y ago
I don't buy it at all that just because the archeologists didn't find evidence of a throne room, there wasn't a ruling class or group of elders deciding on important matters and judging on crimes and punishment. “Despite the considerable size and density of the built-up area, there is no evidence for central authority,”´ Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
JasonCannon 5y ago
Anarchist thought on hacker news from the New Yorker? I'm here for it. David Graeber (rest in power comrade) was a fantastic writer and his book Debt the first 5000 years was absolutely fascinating. Really exposes the absurdity of the econ 101 barter argument as well as provides a great look at how debt and forgiveness of debt is fundamental to human society https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-debt https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-debt
- mrjangles 5y ago
  The history part of that book was really good, but when he starts talking about economics it quickly becomes clear he is confused about even the most simple concepts. He tries to critique economics without knowing anything about economics. What one really gets from this book is an understanding of where the human 'crabs in bucket' attitude comes from and how it is deep within our natural instincts. Having spent a lot of time in 3rd world countries, I can say that his description of debt and how things work through guilt and people manipulating each other is exactly how things still work. He actually treats it like it is a good thing though, but once you see it for yourself it is clear that this is has a lot to do with why these places are still poor. Breaking free from that, and inventing objective measures of credit and laws for proper debt accounting and repayment, has a lot to do with why we are so happy and rich in the modern world, I think.
  - JasonCannon 5y ago
    >He actually treats it like it is a good thing though, but once you see it for yourself it is clear that this is has a lot to do with why these places are still poor Really? It's that and not the imperialist systems that have oppressed and colonized them that are the reason they are poor? Fascinating.
    - fallingknife 5y ago
      But they were poor and the colonists were rich before they ever came into contact.
      - JasonCannon 5y ago
        Gonna need a source on this one.
        Jensson 5y ago
        Europe built stuff like this long before colonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Cathedral In Europe such constructions happened in many places, no other part of the world built similar things. No, not even Asia, Europe were ahead of them at this point.
        JasonCannon 5y ago
        The ancient mosques? The pyramids of Egypt? The pyramids of South America? The Aztecs built their capital on a lake. The Taj Mahal, Kailasa Temple, any of the temples in ancient Babylon and Mesopotamia, and countless other monuments built all over the world (not super familiar with the far east)? This is the peak of eurocentrism and ignorance of the rest of the world. You honestly believe on Europe was building giant monuments?
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Sometimes true, and sometimes not. The Incas and the Aztec were rich.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
https://archive.md/WHMuQ https://archive.md/WHMuQ
smitty1e 5y ago
I would that there were time travel available. Then we could send the Noble Savage Myth[1] peddlers back to their Edenic antiquity of choice. Perhaps they'd discover that their purported paradises were as friction-laden as the present, albeit without all the bad, bad technology that ehances our Tartaran present. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage
- clydethefrog 5y ago
  In the second chapter of his book the writers already discuss heavily this noble savage myth and deconstruct it. I really recommend the book, it's an amazing read. “The racist denigration of the savage, and naive celebration of savage innocence, are always treated as two sides of the same imperialist coin.56 Yet originally this was an explicitly right-wing position, as explained by Ter Ellingson, the contemporary anthropologist who has reviewed the subject most comprehensively. Ellingson concluded there never was a ‘noble savage’ myth; at least not in the sense of a stereotype of simple societies living in an age of happy primordial innocence. Rather, travellers’ accounts tend to supply a much more ambivalent picture, describing alien societies as a complicated, sometimes (to them) incoherent, mix of virtues and vices. What needs to be investigated, instead, might better be called the ‘myth of the myth of the noble savage’: why is it that certain Europeans began attributing such a naive position to others?”
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    From the Wikipedia page: > The phrase later became identified with the idealized picture of "nature's gentleman", which was an aspect of 18th-century sentimentalism. These days the sentiment seems more associated with people expressing unhappiness with complexity.
errcorrectcode 5y ago
Anarchy scales so long as there are no bad actors. "If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison It highlights the flaws of utopian thinking. Since this isn't the case, government is necessary beyond a certain scale.
- the-smug-one 5y ago
  I haven't read any classics from anarchism but the notion I got from Noam Chomsky is that anarchism isn't about a complete lack of power structures, it's about demanding that there are adequate reasons for them to exist. So government wouldn't necessarily be gone under an anarchist system, it would only disappear if the collective decides that it is unnecessary.
  - JasonCannon 5y ago
    It also is about decentralizing power. There would be no one executive being who decides something is or is not legal. But the collective would be able to vote directly on how things should operate. And that includes the ability to punish / exile / whatever bad actors.
    - philipov 5y ago
      So.... you're saying Anarchists really just want to have Athenian Democracy? Direct democracy might work well for a city state where even poor citizens are independent land owners, but I'm not convinced it would work for a large nation where there are enough powerful bad actors that they can use marketing and patronage to get control of the political process.
      - JasonCannon 5y ago
        Not athenian democracy, because that had hierarchy inherent in it. But yes, we believe in Direct Democracy. >Direct democracy might work well for a city state where even poor citizens are independent land owners, One of the principal beliefs of Anarchists is that property is theft[0]. So no one would be an independent land owner. Everyone would be equally involved and have equal rights as we would all be members of the Commune/Council/Community/Collective/Union/whatever term the community wants to use to describe their collective. I prefer either Commune or Union personally. >But I'm not convinced it would work for a large nation where there are enough powerful bad actors that they can use marketing and patronage to get control of the political process. A lot of people have this idea that Anarchism would break down at larger levels. And that's kind of true, but we have organizational techniques to avoid this. One such technique is the idea that you have your commune and it's you and your neighbors or coworkers (you can be in multiple communes) and it will be a small commune where everyone knows each other. This is the group that handles most of your day to day governance and issues. These communes will federate with other communes, and create a commune that are represented by a member of each member commune. These representatives would represent the will of their source commune in the larger federation, and can be instantly recallable if they start making power plays or decisions that the source commune doesn't agree with. There could be multiple levels of these federations, each keeping the group in session small (less than 80 people) but no one really being in a position of power or permanently having their job. Each commune that's part of the federation can choose how they choose their representative. Some may want the most charismatic person. Some may choose at random. Some may consider it a duty of the members of that commune and so it switches every few weeks. These representatives don't get special perks or privileges for being chosen. They just represent their federation and their commune in order to expedite the process. Also, Anarchists do not believe in the concept of the City State, or the Nation. Borders are violent[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! [1] https://crimethinc.com/posters/borders-the-global-caste-system https://crimethinc.com/posters/borders-the-global-caste-syst...
OneTimePetes 5y ago
"City without rulers.." like Mogadishu in the early 90s? I stopped reading. Anarchism without considering the legacy humanity instincts inherited is not realistic and not worth considering. Anarchy has no buying and selling. The strong just take. Without a non-violence consent aka state, there are no rules and no syndicalism survives that. There is not way around this once the monopoly on violence is gone. No clever trickery. So you hide your money in crypto? They beat you with a 5 $ wrench, until you give all you can give. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/
- JasonCannon 5y ago
  >Anarchism without considering the legacy humanity instincts inherited is not realistic and not worth considering. Man, if only in the last 200 years of philosophical work done on Anarchism one of the anarchist philosophers would have stopped and considered human nature and history. Thanks random HN poster for completely dismantling the entire field by bringing up this one point that no one has ever thought of before! >Anarchy has no buying and selling. The strong just take. Without a non-violence consent aka state, there are no rules and no syncdicalism survives that. Man, if only there were like ways that Anarchists could organize and fight that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Lib... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_de... What makes you think everyone would just sit by and let people just steal from them? It's almost like you aren't considering the legacy humanity instincts and history of the planet if you think that's how people would react. edit: Also, warlords are absolutely rulers, so no. Not like mogadishu in the 90's.
  - OneTimePetes 5y ago
    INB4 ten hours of bakunin posts and links leading to failed projects with hour long reviews of why external factors are to blame. Re-Education will patch all the brain-bugs. And if it does not, we fall back to individualism and shoot them as counter-revolutionarys. The education that the education does nothing, seems to stick. I refuse to have my lifetime wasted by political philosophy without one single longterm surviving project. And yes, lets take Mogadischu. A prime example that when the state breaks down, people fall back to family ties, aka clans, aka feudalism with grandpa as the default model. Edit: As a individual mindset, anarchism is incredible liberating and i can recommend it as a thought approach, that takes nearly nothing as "given". But for a "given" like oneself and ones fellow men, it does not work out to design proper stress surviving societal structures.
igouy 5y ago
> As they put it, “Humans may not have begun their history in a state of primordial innocence, but they do appear to have begun it with a self-conscious aversion to being told what to do. If this is so, we can at least refine our initial question: the real puzzle is not when chiefs, or even kings and queens, first appeared, but rather when it was no longer possible to simply laugh them out of court.” When weapons that anyone could make from everyday materials became wildly insufficient against bronze weapons made by magic and hoarded by kings. "A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe" https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Humanity/-p0jEAAAQBAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Huma...
- fourtrees 5y ago
  I like this answer, and Krause's on my reading list now. I have to speculate that the development of the organizational/institutional capabilities to produce bronze on a large scale (especially the need for reliable long-distance trade networks needed to acquire tin (or pre-made bronze) en masse), and not just the effectiveness of the material as an arm (and the feedback between these two factors), was a very important change. 'Suddenly', you have a whole part of society whose livelihoods are dependent on the bronze industry and who would seemingly be willing to fight to keep their potentate(s) in power if it meant keeping their trade afloat (were the original nobles just the members of the local bronze 'guild'?). And of course an even larger segment of the population willing to go along with it for their own safety.
- tremon 5y ago
  Alternately: when we developed warehousing. Grain houses, meat salting, anything that allowed long-term storage allowed hoarding. Manual labour then shifted from subsistence-related activities to protecting the stash, and that means you need a power structure to decide who gets access to what part of the riches.
  - igouy 5y ago
    > … protecting the stash… "… wildly insufficient against bronze weapons…"
dsign 5y ago
This article left me wondering. What happens if you put a small group of modern people in relative isolation outside any legal jurisdiction, and ask them to create their own legality? Also you tell them to check their references and their books, even read the New Yorker; it's not a Lord of the Flies scenario. Would they be able to revert to "cavorting", or will they immediately elect a major and build an office complex so that they can toil from 9:00 to 5:00 in some deeply civilized paperwork?
- kuu 5y ago
  In a sense you can see that in some online servers. For example, here in my country, a few months ago a group of streamers started a Minecraft server where they all play. They are divided in 3 towns of around 10 people each. What is funny is that in one of the towns, one of the first they created was a "god" that they worship. Then they created boundaries with other towns and a "customs" at the border. They later elected a mayor for each town... It's interesting to see how they mimic and create these structures when they're not actually needed.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  They're going to want clean water, and a reliable food supply, and mosquito abatement. "Cavorting" isn't going to get them that.
vishnugupta 5y ago
Just looking at the title I knew this was about recently released book The Dawn of Everything[1]. I'm about 30% in and it's been a while since I have read a book this good; full of insights, backed with evidence and bibliography that in itself is a rabbit hole. I can't recommend it enough. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-everything https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-eve...
Randy658 5y ago
Thanks for the information, I will try to figure it out for more. Keep sharing such informative post keep suggesting such post. https://www.alaskasworld.vip/ https://www.alaskasworld.vip/

63 points by Thevet 5y ago

I don't buy it at all that just because the archeologists didn't find evidence of a throne room, there wasn't a ruling class or group of elders deciding on important matters and judging on crimes and punishment. “Despite the considerable size and density of the built-up area, there is no evidence for central authority,”´ Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

JasonCannon 5y ago

Anarchist thought on hacker news from the New Yorker? I'm here for it. David Graeber (rest in power comrade) was a fantastic writer and his book Debt the first 5000 years was absolutely fascinating. Really exposes the absurdity of the econ 101 barter argument as well as provides a great look at how debt and forgiveness of debt is fundamental to human society https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-debt https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/david-graeber-debt

mrjangles 5y ago
The history part of that book was really good, but when he starts talking about economics it quickly becomes clear he is confused about even the most simple concepts. He tries to critique economics without knowing anything about economics. What one really gets from this book is an understanding of where the human 'crabs in bucket' attitude comes from and how it is deep within our natural instincts. Having spent a lot of time in 3rd world countries, I can say that his description of debt and how things work through guilt and people manipulating each other is exactly how things still work. He actually treats it like it is a good thing though, but once you see it for yourself it is clear that this is has a lot to do with why these places are still poor. Breaking free from that, and inventing objective measures of credit and laws for proper debt accounting and repayment, has a lot to do with why we are so happy and rich in the modern world, I think.
- JasonCannon 5y ago
  >He actually treats it like it is a good thing though, but once you see it for yourself it is clear that this is has a lot to do with why these places are still poor Really? It's that and not the imperialist systems that have oppressed and colonized them that are the reason they are poor? Fascinating.
  - fallingknife 5y ago
    But they were poor and the colonists were rich before they ever came into contact.
    - JasonCannon 5y ago
      Gonna need a source on this one.
      - Jensson 5y ago
        Europe built stuff like this long before colonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Cathedral https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wells_Cathedral In Europe such constructions happened in many places, no other part of the world built similar things. No, not even Asia, Europe were ahead of them at this point.
        JasonCannon 5y ago
        The ancient mosques? The pyramids of Egypt? The pyramids of South America? The Aztecs built their capital on a lake. The Taj Mahal, Kailasa Temple, any of the temples in ancient Babylon and Mesopotamia, and countless other monuments built all over the world (not super familiar with the far east)? This is the peak of eurocentrism and ignorance of the rest of the world. You honestly believe on Europe was building giant monuments?
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Sometimes true, and sometimes not. The Incas and the Aztec were rich.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

https://archive.md/WHMuQ https://archive.md/WHMuQ

smitty1e 5y ago

I would that there were time travel available. Then we could send the Noble Savage Myth[1] peddlers back to their Edenic antiquity of choice. Perhaps they'd discover that their purported paradises were as friction-laden as the present, albeit without all the bad, bad technology that ehances our Tartaran present. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage

clydethefrog 5y ago
In the second chapter of his book the writers already discuss heavily this noble savage myth and deconstruct it. I really recommend the book, it's an amazing read. “The racist denigration of the savage, and naive celebration of savage innocence, are always treated as two sides of the same imperialist coin.56 Yet originally this was an explicitly right-wing position, as explained by Ter Ellingson, the contemporary anthropologist who has reviewed the subject most comprehensively. Ellingson concluded there never was a ‘noble savage’ myth; at least not in the sense of a stereotype of simple societies living in an age of happy primordial innocence. Rather, travellers’ accounts tend to supply a much more ambivalent picture, describing alien societies as a complicated, sometimes (to them) incoherent, mix of virtues and vices. What needs to be investigated, instead, might better be called the ‘myth of the myth of the noble savage’: why is it that certain Europeans began attributing such a naive position to others?”
- smitty1e 5y ago
  From the Wikipedia page: > The phrase later became identified with the idealized picture of "nature's gentleman", which was an aspect of 18th-century sentimentalism. These days the sentiment seems more associated with people expressing unhappiness with complexity.

errcorrectcode 5y ago

Anarchy scales so long as there are no bad actors. "If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." - James Madison It highlights the flaws of utopian thinking. Since this isn't the case, government is necessary beyond a certain scale.

the-smug-one 5y ago
I haven't read any classics from anarchism but the notion I got from Noam Chomsky is that anarchism isn't about a complete lack of power structures, it's about demanding that there are adequate reasons for them to exist. So government wouldn't necessarily be gone under an anarchist system, it would only disappear if the collective decides that it is unnecessary.
- JasonCannon 5y ago
  It also is about decentralizing power. There would be no one executive being who decides something is or is not legal. But the collective would be able to vote directly on how things should operate. And that includes the ability to punish / exile / whatever bad actors.
  - philipov 5y ago
    So.... you're saying Anarchists really just want to have Athenian Democracy? Direct democracy might work well for a city state where even poor citizens are independent land owners, but I'm not convinced it would work for a large nation where there are enough powerful bad actors that they can use marketing and patronage to get control of the political process.
    - JasonCannon 5y ago
      Not athenian democracy, because that had hierarchy inherent in it. But yes, we believe in Direct Democracy. >Direct democracy might work well for a city state where even poor citizens are independent land owners, One of the principal beliefs of Anarchists is that property is theft[0]. So no one would be an independent land owner. Everyone would be equally involved and have equal rights as we would all be members of the Commune/Council/Community/Collective/Union/whatever term the community wants to use to describe their collective. I prefer either Commune or Union personally. >But I'm not convinced it would work for a large nation where there are enough powerful bad actors that they can use marketing and patronage to get control of the political process. A lot of people have this idea that Anarchism would break down at larger levels. And that's kind of true, but we have organizational techniques to avoid this. One such technique is the idea that you have your commune and it's you and your neighbors or coworkers (you can be in multiple communes) and it will be a small commune where everyone knows each other. This is the group that handles most of your day to day governance and issues. These communes will federate with other communes, and create a commune that are represented by a member of each member commune. These representatives would represent the will of their source commune in the larger federation, and can be instantly recallable if they start making power plays or decisions that the source commune doesn't agree with. There could be multiple levels of these federations, each keeping the group in session small (less than 80 people) but no one really being in a position of power or permanently having their job. Each commune that's part of the federation can choose how they choose their representative. Some may want the most charismatic person. Some may choose at random. Some may consider it a duty of the members of that commune and so it switches every few weeks. These representatives don't get special perks or privileges for being chosen. They just represent their federation and their commune in order to expedite the process. Also, Anarchists do not believe in the concept of the City State, or the Nation. Borders are violent[1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft! [1] https://crimethinc.com/posters/borders-the-global-caste-system https://crimethinc.com/posters/borders-the-global-caste-syst...

OneTimePetes 5y ago

"City without rulers.." like Mogadishu in the early 90s? I stopped reading. Anarchism without considering the legacy humanity instincts inherited is not realistic and not worth considering. Anarchy has no buying and selling. The strong just take. Without a non-violence consent aka state, there are no rules and no syndicalism survives that. There is not way around this once the monopoly on violence is gone. No clever trickery. So you hide your money in crypto? They beat you with a 5 $ wrench, until you give all you can give. https://xkcd.com/538/ https://xkcd.com/538/

JasonCannon 5y ago
>Anarchism without considering the legacy humanity instincts inherited is not realistic and not worth considering. Man, if only in the last 200 years of philosophical work done on Anarchism one of the anarchist philosophers would have stopped and considered human nature and history. Thanks random HN poster for completely dismantling the entire field by bringing up this one point that no one has ever thought of before! >Anarchy has no buying and selling. The strong just take. Without a non-violence consent aka state, there are no rules and no syncdicalism survives that. Man, if only there were like ways that Anarchists could organize and fight that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Lib... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_del_Trabajo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_de... What makes you think everyone would just sit by and let people just steal from them? It's almost like you aren't considering the legacy humanity instincts and history of the planet if you think that's how people would react. edit: Also, warlords are absolutely rulers, so no. Not like mogadishu in the 90's.
- OneTimePetes 5y ago
  INB4 ten hours of bakunin posts and links leading to failed projects with hour long reviews of why external factors are to blame. Re-Education will patch all the brain-bugs. And if it does not, we fall back to individualism and shoot them as counter-revolutionarys. The education that the education does nothing, seems to stick. I refuse to have my lifetime wasted by political philosophy without one single longterm surviving project. And yes, lets take Mogadischu. A prime example that when the state breaks down, people fall back to family ties, aka clans, aka feudalism with grandpa as the default model. Edit: As a individual mindset, anarchism is incredible liberating and i can recommend it as a thought approach, that takes nearly nothing as "given". But for a "given" like oneself and ones fellow men, it does not work out to design proper stress surviving societal structures.

igouy 5y ago

> As they put it, “Humans may not have begun their history in a state of primordial innocence, but they do appear to have begun it with a self-conscious aversion to being told what to do. If this is so, we can at least refine our initial question: the real puzzle is not when chiefs, or even kings and queens, first appeared, but rather when it was no longer possible to simply laugh them out of court.” When weapons that anyone could make from everyday materials became wildly insufficient against bronze weapons made by magic and hoarded by kings. "A Short History of Humanity: A New History of Old Europe" https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Humanity/-p0jEAAAQBAJ https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Huma...

fourtrees 5y ago
I like this answer, and Krause's on my reading list now. I have to speculate that the development of the organizational/institutional capabilities to produce bronze on a large scale (especially the need for reliable long-distance trade networks needed to acquire tin (or pre-made bronze) en masse), and not just the effectiveness of the material as an arm (and the feedback between these two factors), was a very important change. 'Suddenly', you have a whole part of society whose livelihoods are dependent on the bronze industry and who would seemingly be willing to fight to keep their potentate(s) in power if it meant keeping their trade afloat (were the original nobles just the members of the local bronze 'guild'?). And of course an even larger segment of the population willing to go along with it for their own safety.
tremon 5y ago
Alternately: when we developed warehousing. Grain houses, meat salting, anything that allowed long-term storage allowed hoarding. Manual labour then shifted from subsistence-related activities to protecting the stash, and that means you need a power structure to decide who gets access to what part of the riches.
- igouy 5y ago
  > … protecting the stash… "… wildly insufficient against bronze weapons…"

dsign 5y ago

This article left me wondering. What happens if you put a small group of modern people in relative isolation outside any legal jurisdiction, and ask them to create their own legality? Also you tell them to check their references and their books, even read the New Yorker; it's not a Lord of the Flies scenario. Would they be able to revert to "cavorting", or will they immediately elect a major and build an office complex so that they can toil from 9:00 to 5:00 in some deeply civilized paperwork?

kuu 5y ago
In a sense you can see that in some online servers. For example, here in my country, a few months ago a group of streamers started a Minecraft server where they all play. They are divided in 3 towns of around 10 people each. What is funny is that in one of the towns, one of the first they created was a "god" that they worship. Then they created boundaries with other towns and a "customs" at the border. They later elected a mayor for each town... It's interesting to see how they mimic and create these structures when they're not actually needed.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
They're going to want clean water, and a reliable food supply, and mosquito abatement. "Cavorting" isn't going to get them that.

vishnugupta 5y ago

Just looking at the title I knew this was about recently released book The Dawn of Everything[1]. I'm about 30% in and it's been a while since I have read a book this good; full of insights, backed with evidence and bibliography that in itself is a rabbit hole. I can't recommend it enough. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-everything https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56269264-the-dawn-of-eve...

Randy658 5y ago

Thanks for the information, I will try to figure it out for more. Keep sharing such informative post keep suggesting such post. https://www.alaskasworld.vip/ https://www.alaskasworld.vip/