The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era Paperback – September 8, 2005

I like a lot about this book - it's full of tons of interesting detail about primal/ancestral peoples and their mythologies, both in modern times and from archaeological evidence.It offers a lot of support for the thesis that humans have not always been violent and psychologically disturbed. Prior to around 4000 BCE there is precious little evidence of warfare, violence, inequality, oppression of sexes or classes, nor for an adversarial relationship with nature etc. Multiple 'golden age' myths from around the world, including the Garden of Eden myth in Genesis, are testament to the view that humans lived much more harmonious lives all round, prior to large scale civilisation.However, the problem for me is in explaining why we changed to become violent and acquisitive. Steve Taylor suggests it was the drying up of the Middle East and Eurasian area around 4000 BCE which led to conflict among the population there for resources. This triggered a psychological change and then the populations fanned out across the globe eventually, invading and changing other regions of hitherto peaceful peoples.I have two main issues with this thesis. One is that we now know that there were multiple megalithic sites dating back far earlier than 4000 BCE. Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, one of the largest megalithic sites in the whole world, dates to around 9500 BCE. I can't see how any society that was peaceful, egalitarian and at one with nature, would go to the immense trouble of erecting huge stone megaliths. It would have involved a huge labour force. Why would they do this? It smacks much more of ancient Egypt than the free, liberal, equality-loving horticultural / hunter gatherer communities that Taylor says universally pre-dated the 'fall' era of around 4000 BCE.Secondly is that anatomically modern Homo sapiens have existed for roughly 300,000 years, and have experienced a multitude of extreme environmental changes over that period, including ice ages and massive rises in sea levels. Why wouldn't these have triggered other 'fall' behaviours in prior millennia? IN fact, many primal peoples lived in harsh, marginal areas of land, like the San in the Kalahari desert. the harsh environment didn't, in their cases, flip them into the 'fall' mentality of 'civilised' humans.I don't blame the author, this is a very difficult question and I'm not sure anyone has the answer. Prior to around 4000 BCE, the majority of humans simply lived in a sort of harmonious relationship to nature and one another - other than what was necessary for subsistence. They didn't accumulate wealth, or create hierarchical societies. What's remarkable that this book shows very clearly, is that it's not simply a question of the shift from hunter gatherer to horticultural/agricluture and towns. Prior to 4000 BCE there are many examples of settled peoples who nevertheless were peaceful and egalitarian.So if it's not the environment per se, nor the change from hunter-gatherer to settled horticulturalists, then what on earth flipped our ancestors' switches so dramatically into war mongering maniacs and empire building paranoid narcissists?One hypothesis is that it’s biological evolution reaching a tipping point. Although it’s common to hear that ‘biologically modern’ humans have been around for 200-300k years, the reality is evolution doesn’t happen in blocks, but in constant shifting changes. Is it possible that the parts of our brains which excel at this modern maniacal behaviour we’ve seen since 4000 BCE, reached a critical tipping point in a few places (the Saharasian area), perhaps triggered by the droughts and climate changes, but nevertheless requiring those physical brain structures to support such behaviour?The reason I think this may be the case, is that some ancestral peoples, like native peoples in the americas, or Aborigines in Australia, do not adapt well to modern western ways of life. Could it be that there were some genetic adaptations in those Saharasian populations that precipitated the psychological ‘Fall’?The more i think about it, the more likely this seems. Granted there is a memetic (mind virus) element to this too. Culture is not genetically determined and can spread without changes in genes. And yet culture cannot just erupt out of nothing, there have to be certain manifested conditions to instigate it. It’s really a chicken and egg story. But even when culture spreads to new peoples, it doesn’t always get taken up the same way. Could part of this difference be accounted for by biological, genetic factors? This is an area most researchers dare not treat, because it calls up the whole biological basis of racial differences issue. But I’m not saying the Saharasian mindset is better, in fact in most ways it seems to be worse, and yet economically and technologically it advances faster. The point here is not to say that there is something superior or inferior about the peoples who fell or didn’t fall. But rather to say that perhaps they didn’t have a choice either way.Life has evolved through countless different conditions, from simple bacteria up to complex mammalian organisms. Change always involves some adjustment. Perhaps the ‘Fall’ is just one of the latest changes, and one that the human consciousness hasn’t yet adjusted to. To adjust successfully to a change simply means to find a way to incorporate the new change into a positive sentient experience.So perhaps the fall is simply a new brain ‘technology’, that is being used badly. Like all technologies, it is neither good nor bad in itself, and goodness or badness depend entirely on the usage. The fall mind may have an increased capacity for thought and abstract reasoning. IN the positive, this could lead to beautiful music or art; in the negative, to fetishising kings, idols of ‘god’, or military might. None of these things have any utility other than conceptual. They don’t actually make real life nice, but they feed the conceptual mind like a drug. If that part of one’s brain is not so exaggerated, then it would be harder to adopt such a mind virus, but where it is exaggerated, it would be hard not to. Ultimately Saharasian peoples may have become hijacked by their own new mental capacities, instead of being adept at using them as instruments for new ways of living beautiful lives.

The author presents a unique analysis of human history that I haven't read anywhere else. He gives many footnotes and references to anthropologists and philosophers in his work, which I checked out on wikipedia and they seem to be valid. I always wonder about these type of books that have an ideological ax to grind, but this one seems okay. His ideas are unconventional, but I don't believe he is pulling random ideas out of his imagination or twisting facts too much to support his arguments, as some other authors in this genre do.The main theme of the book is that rather than being brutal savages, prehistoric humans lived as peaceful bands of hunter/gatherers and farmers. He cites various tribal groups throughout history to make his point. He argues that human society remained peaceful and cooperative until the arrival of the Ego, a sort of psychological problem which was brought about by resource scarcity in the Middle East. He states that the resource scarcity was brought about by climate change.The climate change may or may not be true -- I didn't check up on that one. The reason I didn't check it is that I think the Ego could have come about just from population increases, regardless of whether there were any climate changes. The climate change is actually unimportant to the argument, in my opinion.I believe that as the human population increased, common sense tells us that competition for natural resources must have increased as well. When there was no longer any unpopulated land left on the European continent, people must have come into conflict more frequently. Those tribes who were most warlike and had the strongest army would naturally dominate/destroy the more peaceful tribes.Of course, the most warlike individual/tribe is also the individual/tribe with the biggest Ego problem... (by definition)Fast-forward to today, and it is obvious that our leaders in both the corporate world and political world still suffer from the same Ego problem, where humans are treated as "human resources" rather than conscious beings, and multilevel hierarchical control is still the norm. Abuse of nature is common, and dishonesty and manipulation radiate from our mainstream media as the powerful keep the weak in check with misinformation. The technologies may have changed, but the same "Genghis Khan" (a.k.a. sociopath) type mentality rules our boardrooms and legislature.The author's solution is basically that people need to start becoming more enlightened, practice meditation, and to conserve natural resources. Looking at the people I know in my daily life, I have a hard time believing that many in this society will ever be able to achieve that level of conscious awareness. Nevertheless, I do agree with the author that if things don't change soon the human race will probably destroy itself...I think one possible route to the enlightenment would be the information now available on the internet that is out of control of the ruling elite. It is difficult for them to stop someone from posting a video on youtube expressing their opinions about NSA spying, bank bailouts, drone attacks, or whatever -- at least at this point of time. And if enough people start questioning and searching for answers, then perhaps we really will see some social change. I worry though that the internet will be shut down or censored in the future in western countries, though, like it is in China and some Mid-East countries.Overall, I agree with most of what the author wrote in the book. However, I disagree with the author's political views. He seems to view government programs that redistribute wealth to be beneficial, with one example he mentioned being Social Security. The reason I disagree is that I don't think the government can legislate compassion to force people to be kinder. In my opinion, the change towards a more compassionate society has to come from within - i.e. PEOPLE must become the change rather than trying to FORCE change on each other. If the change isn't voluntary, then it will fail.He cites Soviet communism as an example of a top-down type of change that failed due to the people's psychology/ego not being ready for a society of compassion. Well, yes, exactly!! I wonder then why doesn't he see the same problem in his own progressive politics point of view? The same problems would happen today if we try to enact communism/socialism in America.Basically what I am saying here is that the change has to come from individual free choice. Otherwise, you are just recreating the same problem that you are trying to solve, by using authoritarianism and hierarchy to manipulate people. This is why communism cannot and does not work. Compassion can't be forced on people by the government, and if it is, it actually has the opposite effect as people fight the law because it is taking away their voluntarily choice to be compassionate or not (like Obamacare for example).I agree with the author that contemporary society needs to become more compassionate/cooperative rather than greedy/manipulative. Our world is in so much trouble. However, you can't solve selfishness by selfishly controlling other people to obey your will!!! The same mentality that created the problem cannot be used to fix it. I believe the change to become more compassionate must come from WITHIN each individual, from their heart, otherwise it won't work. We can see that today with all the social programs that were created with good intentions, but ended up becoming bankrupt (e.g. social security) or created more of the problem they sought to solve (e.g. war on drugs)...My suggested further reading if you like this book: Austrian economics, Libertarianism, Ron Paul

I love this book. It was a pleasure to read. Steve Taylor has helped me to come to grips with so many questions that have plagued me. Do men just preternaturally rape women? How can we abuse each other and everything around us and expect no physic and planetary consequences? How is it possible for the human race to be so selfish and egocentric in a world that's falling down around our ears? I have always thought that we human must simply be a bit mad, and after reading this book, I understand that indeed we are. This book puts the "madness" in a context that makes sense and offers us hope that maybe it's not too late. I think this is one of the most important books I've ever read. Taylor's compassionate erudition is refreshing, enlightening and absolutely brilliant, he's interested in sharing his scholarship not flashing it and I am deeply grateful.I tried to order his earlier work "Out of Time: the Five Laws of Psychological Time and how to Transcend them. but it seems sadly to be out of print. I hope the success of this book sends a message to his publishers.Thank you Steve Taylor

This is a great, hope-filled account of how beautiful life was and can be again. I recommend to anyone interested in what is possible when we transcend ego.

This was one of the most interesting books I've ever read...and I've read a lot of interesting books. Kind of a mix of psychology, spirituality, history, anthropology and sociology. Very well-researched and enlightening. I read it months ago and still think about it often. I haven't read all of Steve Taylor's books, but of the ones I've read this is my favourite. They're all good though - I'm a big fan :)

This book is both great and terrible. Parts 1 and 2, outlining the nature of The Fall and its effects of humanity are fantastic; part 3 is the runt of the litter. Firstly, even parts 1 and 2 have problems. For example, humans emerged because of environmental desiccation in Africa 4-5 million years ago. For over two million years our ancestors lived in a harsh environment, being preyed upon by big cats, hyenas and eagles. I would submit that a lot of our Fall relates to that period, not a brief period of desiccation 6000 years ago (although the latter would have an effect). Proof of man's destructiveness occurs long before that time - for example, consider the extermination of megafauna wherever humans have gone, in the past 100 000 years (often by Unfallen peoples). Second, I submit that our Ego Explosion is genetically ingrained and thus not amenable to magic wand solutions like meditation. Also, the reason why Saharasia produces warlike peoples may relate to other factors, for instance simple geography - it is a meeting place for many peoples who have to struggle and compete for survival. That said, the author's description of the character-armoured Indo-European/Semitic mindset and its various manifestations is peerless and plausible. No doubt these peoples brought a new set of dynamics to the evolutionary table, with which other races could not compete. This is why European women's DNA shows far more variance and traces of extinct lines - our ancestors killed off the Unfallen males and took their women as war maidens. I would suggest the primal guilt of the Fallen religions may relate to this process.The final part of the book is the worst. Firstly, since the Exploded Ego is genetic in nature (that is, hardwired into our brains) it is unlikely that a counter-current could suddenly arise in the 18th century and change everything. And indeed, the evidence suggests otherwise: the same people who abolished slavery were working poor white kids to death in their factories. During World War One, British troops were so violent and ignorant they were heard chanting, 'We're off to fight the Belgians!' on the way to France.Secondly, contemporary society shows great evidence that the Ego Explosion is getting WORSE, not better, as the author describes. Almost half of young Americans now have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, for instance. Far from being a revolt against the Fall, the Sixties were an intensification of its values: greed, selfishness, narcissism and superstition. Above all else, the liberation of middle-class women that began in the Sixties has now trickled down to the masses, with predictably unhealthy results. One of the main by-products of mass female liberation is a massive underclass. These are largely the product of single mother households and the innate, adaptive female preference for violent, low IQ sociopaths. Once female sexuality is no longer regulated by patriarchy, Stone Age underclass subcultures rapidly emerge. This underclass now threatens most of the Unfallen values Mr Taylor holds dear. A cursory glance at underclass communities shows that matriarchy does not produce peaceful, Unfallen people - to the contrary, the underclass are short-lived, moronic, uncreative, violent and disturbed. This supports my own view that the effects of the Fall are genetically ingrained and not amenable to Magic Wand solutions, as the author opines. Probably destroying humanity is the only true solution to man's Exploded Ego.I have attended some of the author's lectures and he is an interesting speaker. Because he isn't right about everything does not diminish him or his work - he is 70% right and that is good enough for anyone. A lot of the ideas of Wilhelm Reich and Julius Evola can be put on a biological footing by Mr Taylor's bold thesis. Oh, one last thing - Fallen qualities seem strongest among Anglo-Saxon or North European peoples. It occurs to me that Protestantism may be another Fallen cultural manifestation, and that the peoples who accepted it were closer to the Indo-European 'root-stock' at a psycho-social level.

I am really impressed with this book. I have only recently come to the view that the Fall from Grace is a real thing, not just a biblical story. I would, however, contrast this work with that of Jeremy Griffith. Griffith postulates the Fall started two million years ago and we're still Falling. Taylor postulates the Fall started six thousand years ago. I don't know which is closer to the truth. I do know that if you're interested in this sort of stuff (and we probably all should be) both Taylor and Griffith are worthy reading.I found parts I and II compelling. Part III was a bit optimistic in my estimation. Mankind really needs to get its sh*t together if we are going to be sustainable and I'm not sure we are anywhere near there yet.I have been very affected by the work of Willhelm Reich and Taylor acknowledges the strength and importance of his work. That's a big plus in my book.Should you read this? It's a yes from me.

Interesting perspective.