The state and market replaced family and community during the Industrial Revolution. Harari first explained that family and community was like a safety net. A person’s family will provide protection, education, health, and shelter. If the family can not provide the services for the individual, the community would step in and help (Harari, p. 356). In this type of society, the state and market had very little power. There were no money transactions. There was no police force. Justice and trading were done by the families in the communities. After the Industrial Revolution, the state and market started to take power from the family and community. In order to do that, Harari said that the market and state “needed the help of a fight column” (p. 359). This column is the individual. For the state and market to get the most power compared to family and community, they catered to the individual. The market and state provide the services that the family and community would provide while giving the individual freedom from others (Harari, p. 359) The state and market eventually got enough power to set regulations on families and communities that prevents them from dealing out justice. All trials are now with the state (Harari, p. 361-362).
In my opinion, historians should be a part of any major decisions. I feel that historians will play the part of the Devil’s advocate or the group that will question everything. The historians will be the ones that will slow down scientific and technological advancements. The historians will be the ones that will ask, “Should we do this?” Historians will be the ones that can possibly see any immediate adverse effects to a fix. Historians will be the group that should help prevent the end of Sapiens.
Diana, great job on your blog post. I really enjoyed reading it. I liked how you gave the background of what the state and market was like in the beginning where it didn’t have very much power and family and community relations were very strong. I also liked the part where you added that the state and market needed a fight column which was the individual. I agree and think you make a great point that historians should play the role of Devil’s advocate in the future with technology and advancements that are being made. Especially with genetic engineering I agree that historians will need to be the people who ask, “Should we do this?’
Hey there Diana! Reading your blog was very interesting and i really enjoyed your post. I agreed with your take on how the market and state catered to the individual. I also agreed with your take on how historians will help stop the end of Homo sapiens. Historians should always use their way of thought to approach certain situations and question the situation with a historical approach. We can always learn from history and we can answer present problems with problems of the past. This was a very great read and it made me understand more of the reading for the blog.
I liked reading your blog! I definitely support your idea about the individual, this idea is so intertwined in the benefits that come from the state and market. What I really liked was your second paragraph. I never thought about how historians having a say, i like the idea as it would bring much needed insight to issues that people may not associate with history, even though everything is associated with history! Great blog and thanks for sharing.