Osman Şenkul
Newspapers and television stations report on what is happening in the markets and across many levels of the economy during an economic crisis, publishing thousands of news stories and hundreds of commentaries. What matters is for people to understand the significance of what is happening around them, to learn what others are experiencing, and to gain insights into what the future may hold. The real issue is the crisis economy; while it engulfs everyone, it also shows, to some extent, how it affects people’s lives…
The economic life of 3000-4000 years ago, although not as complex as today, showed similar developments. For example, while the economy sometimes showed great vitality and therefore growth, history also records economies that collapsed, sank to the bottom, and experienced deep crises. As is the case today, in ancient times, after economic crises, depending on the severity of the crisis, a restructuring took place in all elements of the economy, from superstructures such as the state to infrastructures such as individuals and families.
The post-crisis booms seen in today’s restructuring also occurred in history. In today’s economic world, the most primitive forms of imitation and theft, carried out for greater market share and greater profit, also occurred in history. The changes that a crisis in history brought about in economic and commercial life and in family structures around the Aegean civilisation may have constituted the first technological theft (imitation) in history.
In the early 8th century BC, we find ourselves in the Attica Peninsula (Greece), Thrace, the Aegean Islands and the Aegean coast of Anatolia. Following a long period of economic prosperity, wars broke out, plundering the region’s wealth and triggering a deep economic crisis that would last 150-200 years. The economy, which had developed rapidly and established fundamental rules, suddenly reverted to its primitive state.
Trade virtually disappeared. Families in the region, who had lived in relative prosperity before the crisis, fell into severe poverty. Each family tried to avoid buying goods from outside as much as possible and could only produce the foodstuffs they needed. Furthermore, as they had no surplus production to spend, families tried to make their own clothes, shoes, household items and agricultural tools using their own tools and other resources.
Everyone in the family had a job to do. The men ploughed the fields, planted trees, harvested crops, ground flour, looked after domestic animals, milked sheep and goats, and produced butter and cheese. Women, on the other hand, spun wool and wove cloth at home, using these materials to sew the clothes the family needed. In addition, feeding and raising children, cooking meals, and washing clothes were also the primary responsibilities of women.
These economic changes affected not only ordinary people but also the palace. King Odysseus was harvesting crops and grinding wheat. The king had also learned enough carpentry to build ships and produce and repair the beds in the house. Queen Penelope was weaving cloth in the palace with her maids. The princess, washing clothes with her maids, was contributing to the “palace economy”. These economic developments had brought a kind of equality to the servants and slaves found in palaces and in the homes of influential people in trade with large landowners.
Although slaves and servants did the heaviest work in the house and palace, they had risen to the same level as other family members (or the others had descended to their level) because other family members were also forced to work alongside them and thus became ‘equal’ in the work they did. This situation made the slaves very happy, because they could participate in religious ceremonies alongside the family members with whom they performed the same tasks in the house, kitchen, fields, and gardens.
During these years, almost the entire economy of the region was based on agriculture and animal husbandry. As can be understood from Homer’s poems, agriculture in the region was mainly practised in the plains, using fertiliser and fallow land. The two most commonly grown crops were wheat and barley. Olive and grape cultivation was also practised, wheat bread was eaten, and sweet wine was drunk. Olive oil was also used in cooking and for lighting.
Those who made their living from animal husbandry mainly raised sheep, goats and pigs. In addition, large animals such as bulls and other cattle were bred, and some of the animals were raised specifically for sacrifice. Furthermore, horse breeding was also practised, particularly on the Anatolian side of the Aegean. Livestock breeding in the region was mostly in the hands of large herd owners, and their wealth depended on it. According to historical records, those who owned herds were at greater risk of becoming impoverished. Large landowners could hold on to their land even in times of drought, whereas herd owners would quickly become impoverished in times of epidemic disease.
Although a large part of the economy was represented by agriculture, animal husbandry and family production, crafts such as copper and iron work, pottery, construction, and carpentry also existed during the same period. However, as the owners of these workshops had largely fallen into poverty, they were unable to manufacture and were forced to close their workshops. These artisans found employment as paid workers in a few large workshops. Thus, this major economic crisis also gave rise to the first phenomenon of ‘wage labour’ in history.
The economic crisis in the region gradually gave way to economic recovery towards the end of the 8th century BC. Transport advanced with the help of new techniques, and thus interregional relations developed and trade revived. Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, the island of Euboea (Aegean), Argolis and Laconia (the Greek coast of the Aegean) and all the cities on the Aegean coast of Anatolia became major trading centres. As transport developed further, trade extended as far as the coasts of Syria and Phoenicia.
As a result of the re-establishment of relations in these regions, significant increases were observed not only in trade but also in agricultural, animal husbandry, and artisan production. Goods produced in the settled civilisations of Greece and Western Anatolia began to be transported intensively to these regions once again. The port of El-Mina on the Syrian coast became the main hub for the transportation of goods from almost the entire Aegean region.
Colourful fabrics, spices, metalware and various industrial goods from Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt were brought to this port by caravans and exchanged for wheat, wine and olive oil from the Aegean. Aegean merchants took the industrial goods and fabrics they acquired in exchange for wheat, wine, and olive oil back to their countries.
These exchanges of goods greatly stimulated trade. But at the same time, they may have given rise to ‘the first imitation in history’. The Aegean civilisations, particularly due to the economic crisis they faced in the face of major attacks from Europe, lagged behind Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine, Egypt and other Eastern civilisations in terms of technology. Industrial products and fabrics brought in through trade enabled the Aegean civilisations to advance technologically. Goods brought to the region were carefully examined and attempted to be imitated by blacksmiths, carpenters, and weavers. Initially very amateurish, these imitations gradually became more sophisticated in the hands of craftsmen who gained mastery in these fields, eventually surpassing the quality of the originals.
By the end of the 8th century BC and the beginning of the 7th century BC, the Aegean civilisations were experiencing a definite economic revival. Having further developed the technologies they had acquired through imitation from the East, the Aegeans had regained their leadership in trade and economy, as they had been 150-200 years earlier. The Aegean civilisations, having acquired technology, knew how to make excellent use of Anatolia’s underground and above-ground riches and surpassed even those who had developed the technology. At that time, since there were no patents or know-how as there are today, no one could blame the Aegean civilisations for this imitation of technology, of course.
For some time now, we have been discussing AI-related technological developments and, in particular, their impact on workers and nature. Looking back to the dawn of humanity, we know that humans, who took their first steps by developing what could be considered quite challenging for their time—the ‘fire production technology’—have continued to survive and take forward-looking steps by developing new technologies whenever they found themselves in a tight spot. In the story above, we see that these technological breakthroughs, which took place 27-28 centuries ago, also took their place in history as examples of these ‘survival and progress’-based efforts.
After leaving behind the 20th century, which witnessed the energy transmission revolution, the information communication revolution and the information processing/computers revolution, and is therefore also known as the ‘Scientific Technological Revolution’ Century, technological developments based on ‘artificial intelligence’ have taken centre stage in the 21st century. However, our experiences to date have shown that artificial intelligence is not ‘human-centred.’ On the contrary, the harms of artificial intelligence technology, ranging from unemployment and lack of productivity to environmental destruction, have become increasingly prominent.
Anticipating this bleak picture, MIT Professor Dr Daron Acemoğlu, in his 2021 study titled “The Harms of Artificial Intelligence,” issued the following warning:
“Therefore, my conclusion isthat the best way of preventing these costs is to regulate AI and redirect AI research, away from these harmful endeavours and towards areas where AI can create new tasks that increase human productivity and new products and algorithms that can empower workers and citizens.
“Of course, I realise that such a redirection is unlikely, and regulation of AI is probably more
di¢ cult than the regulation of many other technologies ó both because of its fast-changing,
pervasive nature and because of the international dimension. We also have to be careful, since history is replete with instances in which governments and powerful interest groups opposed new technologies, with disastrous consequences for economic growth (see, e.g., Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012). Nevertheless, the importance of these potential harms justifies the need to start having such conversations.”
Two years later, on 12 August 2023, an article titled ‘AI Is Actually Harmful. Let’s Focus on This Rather Than the End-of-Humanity Scenario’ was published in Scientific American, which also issued the following warning:
“We urge policymakers to draw on solid scholarship that investigates the harms and risks of AI, as well as the harms caused by delegating authority to automated systems, which include the disempowerment of the poor and the intensification of policing against Black and Indigenous families. Solid research in this domain—including social science and theory building—and solid policy based on that research will keep the focus on not using this technology to hurt people.”
In short, the deep divide between those trying to make a living from ‘artificial intelligence’ and those already suffering great harm from it seems to be growing ever wider. In other words, just as the elite who possessed technology in every period of history suppressed the struggle of those at the bottom to rise up, today, those who seek to elevate their mountains of profit and globalise their assets through ruthless artificial intelligence are advancing by causing great harm to both humanity and nature.