The Propensity To Truck And Barter Is What Makes Us Human

9
2397

Adam Smith told us that humans have a “certain propensity” to “truck, barter and exchange one thing for another.” A more modern reading of the evidence we have would suggest that it is this propensity which makes us humans. All of which is something of a blow to the localists who insist that we shouldn’t be trying to do this sorta stuff across geography, for it’s the conquering of that very geography which seems to have been one of the earliest forms of that very trade.

OK, sure, we’re talking about fragmentary evidence, as we always are at this sort of distance, but that evidence really is telling us that the myth of the self-sufficient little band of plains apes isn’t really us at all. We’re from the plains apes that ditched that localism early one. Right early on.

The latest findings:

On a grassy African landscape, some of the earliest members of our species, Homo sapiens, engaged in surprisingly sophisticated behaviors — using color pigments, creating advanced tools and trading for resources with other groups of people.

Those findings were reported on Thursday by scientists who examined artifacts dating from 320,000 years ago unearthed in southern Kenya, roughly the same age as the earliest-known Homo sapiens fossils discovered elsewhere in Africa.

That’s you know, pretty early on. About as early as we’ve really got any knowledge of there properly being homo sapiens sapiens really. The Smith part is this:

THIS division of labour, from which so many advantages are derived, is not originally the effect of any human wisdom, which foresees and intends that general opulence to which it gives occasion. It is the necessary, though very slow and gradual, consequence of a certain propensity in human nature which has in view no such extensive utility; the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.

And more on those early ancestors:

In addition to the larger axes, smaller, more specialized tools were discovered that may have been crafted for different purposes, potentially even as projectile weapons. What’s particularly interesting about these smaller implements is that they are made of obsidian and volcanic stones which were not naturally occurring in the area. This suggests that the stones were actually traded between ancient peoples living many miles apart.

“This change to a very sophisticated set of behaviors that involved greater mental abilities and more complex social lives may have been the leading edge that distinguished our lineage from other early humans,” Rick Potts of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program explains.

There’re a couple of ways that we can use this propensity to trade as defining us as humans. The first is just simply observational. Every group of humans we can see, anywhen or where, does indeed practice the division of labour at some scale. They thus, necessarily, trade. Even if we look at just the most basic human unit, the family (which we can, as we wish, describe as the nuclear or extended – to choice – family) we find that division and thus that trade. The very description of our ancestors as hunter/gatherers is making that point even if the division was hopelessly patriarchal by modern standards.

Hmm, OK, something we observe all humans as doing, we could and probably should use that as being definitional. Obviously, it’s also true that many other species so divide – lions and lionesses take rather different parts in hunts for example. But scale and granularity also matter, no?

This evidence is telling us something more about it. Right back there at the earliest point we can really say that it’s us we’re seeing evidence of long distance trade. That is, not just within that familial grouping (family, band, tribe, according to our descriptive desire) but across such. Which is the thing which poses a problem for the localists, those today who insist we should only eat local food, trade within our own cities or nations and so on.

For the economics here is really very simple. Once we accept the division of labour and the resultant trade we then need to try and define what’s the optimal grouping that we do this among. There are obvious limits to it. If travel is walking then any trade in a day is going to be across walking distances – there’s reasonable speculation that the pattern of market towns across Britain accords to just this pattern. As, more speculatively, that sausage recipes do, the catchment area of each market town having its own variation. If there’s no common medium of exchange then we’re using barter, a less efficient method than money. And so on – language can be a barrier, fear of the other and so on and on.

But efficiency does keep insisting that once you’ve accepted that basic idea of division and trade then the correct unit to be trading with is everyone. If we accept division and trade in the modern world – which everyone does the argument is only over the unit within which we do it – then the efficient unit is the globe, all 7 billion of us.

Our ancient evidence is, well, telling is too strong but strongly suggesting, that we’re descended from those who first worked this out. We’ve that evidence of trade over 50 mile distances 320k years ago. (Approximately and roughly a week’s travel round trip. Roughly you understand, a human can walk 25 miles a day without too much strain. There’s not really anywhere in this world a week’s round trip travel away today.) And now we can use that efficiency argument in reverse. Resource availability – this was most definitely a Malthusian world – would be the major determinant of population over time and generations. Gaining even just marginal efficiency through trade, say by having better tools from that 50 mile distant rock source, would provide just that efficiency edge. Meaning that we’ve got a decent enough argument that it’s trade that makes us humans.

No, not just in that sense that every group of humans we can see trades. But the other way around too, that it was that trade itself which led to the humans from which we’re descended being successful enough at reproduction for us to be descended from them. The greater efficiency of the traded rocks for tools being just that thing which provided the edge (sorry, again) to perpetuate the population.

Yeah, sure, all most speculative. But the underlying point is still true. We know three things about humans and trade. All observed human societies divide labour and thus trade. We’ve good evidence (not just this here, this is just early evidence) that trade over distance, thus trade outside the hunting band, happened in the earliest human societies we have knowledge of. And we also know that once we’ve accepted this trade idea that the optimal trading group – OK, most efficient – is everyone we can actually possibly trade with. Those are useful enough building blocks for the argument not just that humans have this innate propensity to truck and barter but that the trade itself is what made us, turned us into, humans from plains apes.

The outcome of all of which is bugger the localists and bring on the globalisation, isn’t it?

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
bloke in spainPJFSpikeSouthernerSo Much For Subtlety Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Spike
Member

From the itinerant salesman who walks into a new town carrying shiny things no one can get anywhere else, to the entrepreneur who first sees a way to combine dissimilar things usefully (like drivers with some spare time, and the Internet), this is exactly how we advance. Regarding “localists,” Trump is wrong to view trade across borders as a military attack if we get the stuff and the foreigners get only banknotes. But Trump’s blue-collar voters wanted protection against low-cost competition, just as Boeing wants protection against Airbus in the form of subsidized loans to its purchasers. The blue-collar guys,… Read more »

PJF
Guest
PJF

If the ideas about Homo Erectus engaging in intentional seafaring – building, operating and navigating boats capable of carrying large groups – are true, then it seems likely that they had some division of labour (as well as some language and collective understanding). And thus some level of trade. If Sapiens evolved directly from Erectus, maybe it was from the better traders.

And this is fun:
https://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/

So Much For Subtlety
Guest
So Much For Subtlety

That monkey prostitution thing is actually hilarious. But it is not surprising. Male spiders bribe female spiders for sex all the time. Sometimes they get away with it too.

I think we may not have looked hard enough for evidence of trade among animals. Too busy looking for anti-racism and homosexuality I expect.

PJF
Guest
PJF

I remember many years ago reading an idea that bipedal walking evolved in hominids because males who could better carry provisions to females were reproductively advantaged. The world’s oldest profession being the oldest trade, etc.

Southerner
Guest

The eco-terrorists love to admonish us that we shouldn’t be buying strawberries from China when we can get the same thing from Ma and Pa’s farm stall just down the road. This appears logical until we consider one factor: price. If the Chinese can get strawberries halfway across the world to us at a lower cost, then ipso facto they have used fewer resources and are inflicting less destruction on our planet.

PJF
Guest
PJF

Unless the lower cost is due to an externality from the normal market pricing mechanisms (e.g. in this context, carbon dioxide -> climate change).

Spike
Member

We should always choose the best price. (Or, to get picky, the best quality-to-price ratio.) Unless we enjoy buying from Ma and Pa down the road. PJF, “externalities” are cases in which the price does not affect the pundit’s affectations – such as the need to pay the “cost” of the notion that achievement, commerce, grilling hot dogs, and carbon dioxide are ruining climate. Nevertheless, if Chinese strawberries were to include a carbon tax, the consumer should decide on the price after tax. Buying from Ma and Pa could include “externalities” such as maintaining their friendship or getting favors in… Read more »

PJF
Guest
PJF

My comment was limited to Southerner’s suggestion that the lower price, by that very fact, reflects less destruction to the planet.

bloke in spain
Guest
bloke in spain

Well, you’ve certainly explained why Africa is the hub of international trade & Africans the driving force behind it.