In researching my latest Defining Ideas article due tomorrow, I came across this paragraph from UCLA economics professor Jack Hirshleifer. One thing to know about Jack was how incredibly careful a scholar he was.
Substantively, the historical review here suggests an extraordinary resiliency of human populations and social structures. It is of course impossible to prove that social breakdown will never occur in the aftermath of disaster, especially when we contemplate the unprecedented catastrophe of nuclear war. But the lurid picture of post-disaster regression to savagery, that staple of fiction and of popular thought, can draw no support from the historical record.
This is from Jack Hirshleifer, Economic Behavior in Adversity, University of Chicago Press, 1987, p. 6.
Notice the word “no.” That’s why I emphasized how careful a scholar he was. He did not use the word “no” lightly.
I had Jack cover the highlights of his book for The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. His article is titled “Disaster and Recovery.”
My one quibble is his use of the word “extraordinary.” If it happens virtually every time there’s a disaster, it, fortunately, is not extraordinary.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Oct 19 2020 at 1:47pm
I do not question Hirshleifer lightly (and especially not when I haven’t read the source material), but let me float this question:
Could Hirshleifer be missing the dog that doesn’t bark? Societies that devolve into savagery post-disaster do not survive into perpetuity. In other words, is there no historical record because a descent into savagery doesn’t happen or because those societies were so consumed by violence they left no record?
Philo
Oct 19 2020 at 4:25pm
A society that leaves no record is pre-historical, not historical.
David Seltzer
Oct 20 2020 at 3:52pm
Jon, I get your point. If there is no historical record how can your question be answered? How would we establish a null hypothesis without an historical record? Without historical data, how could we determine correlation or causation using standard regression techniques
Loquitur Veritatem
Oct 19 2020 at 7:15pm
Philo to the contrary notwithstanding, Ron Murphy’s point stands: The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. Further, the “historical” record is surely far from a complete picture of what happened in human history. Societies can be relatively small groups whose passing from the scene would go unremarked, and possibly even unnoticed by anyone who wasn’t a member of the defunct group.
Jon Leonard
Oct 19 2020 at 9:36pm
While largely agreeing with his point, the Late Bronze Age collapse is likely a counterexample. At least, there was violence and people mostly stopped living in cities. But the fact that we have very few such examples implies that it is not human nature to descend into savagery easily.
robc
Oct 19 2020 at 10:28pm
That leads to my question: what is savagery? Is it absolute or relative to the peak of civilization?
Steve
Oct 20 2020 at 6:06pm
We don’t know much about the Bronze Age collapse, but the modal view seems to be some sort of regression to savagery.
Comments are closed.