Thanks for this in-depth review, I enjoyed it a lot!
As a sub-distinction between agrarian societies, you might also be interested in this review by Sarah Constantin—https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/hoe-cultures-a-type-of-non-patriarchal-society/ -- discussing how pre-modern cultures that farmed by plow (=more productive per unit land, but requiring more intense upper-body strength), ended up having very distinct [and more unequal] gender roles compared to cultures that farmed by hoe (=more productive per hour of labour, but requires vast amounts of land for a small population) -- differences that persist to this day.
On the question of projecting this argument forward into the future—you might be interested to read some of the work (papers and blogs) of the philosopher John Danaher, who explicitly draws on Morris’ model in discussing a theory of ‘axiological futurism’ (the study of the future of values), along with ideas linkingtechnology and moral revolutions.
Thanks for the link to Sarah Constantin’s post! I remember reading it a long time ago but couldn’t have found it again now if I had tried. It was another thing (along with Morris’s book) that made me update towards thinking that historical gender norms are heavily influenced by technology level and type. Evidence that technology type variation even within farming societies had major impacts on gender norms also seems like fairly strong support for Morris’ idea that the even larger variation between farming societies and foragers/industrialists can explain their different gender norms.
John Danaher’s work looks relevant to this topic, but I’m not convinced that his idea of collective/individual/artificial intelligence as the ideal types of future axiology space is cutting it in the right way. In particular, I have a hard time thinking of how you’d summarize historical value changes as movement in the area spanned by these types.
Thanks for this in-depth review, I enjoyed it a lot!
As a sub-distinction between agrarian societies, you might also be interested in this review by Sarah Constantin—https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2017/09/13/hoe-cultures-a-type-of-non-patriarchal-society/ -- discussing how pre-modern cultures that farmed by plow (=more productive per unit land, but requiring more intense upper-body strength), ended up having very distinct [and more unequal] gender roles compared to cultures that farmed by hoe (=more productive per hour of labour, but requires vast amounts of land for a small population) -- differences that persist to this day.
On the question of projecting this argument forward into the future—you might be interested to read some of the work (papers and blogs) of the philosopher John Danaher, who explicitly draws on Morris’ model in discussing a theory of ‘axiological futurism’ (the study of the future of values), along with ideas linkingtechnology and moral revolutions.
Review of Morris: https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-evolution-of-social-values-from.html
AI’s future impact on societal values: https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2018/09/artificial-intelligence-and.html
Axiological Futurism:
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2021/06/axiological-futurism-systematic-study.html
paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328721000884
Thanks for the link to Sarah Constantin’s post! I remember reading it a long time ago but couldn’t have found it again now if I had tried. It was another thing (along with Morris’s book) that made me update towards thinking that historical gender norms are heavily influenced by technology level and type. Evidence that technology type variation even within farming societies had major impacts on gender norms also seems like fairly strong support for Morris’ idea that the even larger variation between farming societies and foragers/industrialists can explain their different gender norms.
John Danaher’s work looks relevant to this topic, but I’m not convinced that his idea of collective/individual/artificial intelligence as the ideal types of future axiology space is cutting it in the right way. In particular, I have a hard time thinking of how you’d summarize historical value changes as movement in the area spanned by these types.