Game of Thrones Episode 4: Debt, Destruction, and Dragons

Spoiler alert!


Bronn never feels like he receives his due. Then again, he’s always trying to milk whatever he can out of a situation. While Jamie reminds him he’s from wherever—meaning, low-caste—the sellsword has relied on his wit and negotiating power as much as his swordsmanship. When Jamie throws him a bag of gold he’s flabbergasted that Bronn expects a castle. 

Jamie, manipulator he is, knows he is indebted to Bronn, and will be even more so by episode four’s end (if he survives the deep river in all that armor). While Jamie fends off a dragon, Cersei is negotiating her own debt, one the Iron Bank immensely enjoys collecting on. Those interest payments bring quite a smile to Tycho Nestoris’s mug. 

Brandon Stark too owes debt, one he sidesteps by claiming he’s no longer Brandon Stark. His unemotional retort to Meera’s plea for acknowledgement ends with his claiming the ghost in the machine has fled; he is now fully the Three-Eyed Raven. Apparently ravens aren’t indebted to anyone, having transcended the silly world of human emotions. 

Bran has long been developing the indoctrinating blank-eyed stare all wannabe gurus practice. Back in the human world, though, debt exudes an emotional quality. People expect debts to be paid. This fact has been the source of much contention for thousands of years, ever since written language began as a means for keeping track of livestock. Our very ability to write down thoughts stems from an accounting ritual.

So it makes sense that everyone wants what’s due to them. Yet at the same time, the issue of debt has severe consequences, including financial inequality and social stratification. Debt has also long been assigned with spiritual dimensions, as the oldest record keepers were inevitably tied up with religious institutions. 

The major source of the debate is highlighted by Nestoris, who is giddy at the interest the bank has been collecting to fund her war. There is precedent. In the Republic Plato warned against the dangers of excess and luxury. Leaders in the luxurious city, focused on “the endless acquisition of money” that “overstepped the limit of their necessities,” had to pillage neighboring lands in order to keep feeding their destructive appetites, which is exactly what Jamie is out doing when he runs into the Dothraki. Plato, recognizing that we have to work hard at cultivating an equitable society, championed moderation as the keystone of sustainability. The healthy city does not over-consume. Westeros is not healthy.


Aristotle shared his teacher’s suspicion about finances. Specifically he was critical of usury, which he called “the birth of money from money.” He believed money is sterile; when it breeds it causes a blight on social relationships. As an extension of the bottom line psychology that began with written record keeping, wealthy merchants began charging interest on loans, overturning a history of shared debt indicative of tribal societies. Moneylending immediately assumed a spiritual dimension regarding individual and social rights.

In her book, Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, Margaret Atwood calls debt a “mental construct.” Whereas today we consider it a regular if despised part of functioning society, she reminds us that the huge interest rates banks and credit card companies charge is a form of greed, not an inherent biological function, as is the notion of “trickle down economics,” which implies a slow drip, not a gush of wealth. She continues, 

Everything in the human imagination and consequently in human life has both a positive and negative version, and if the trickle-down theory of wealth is the positive, the negative is the trickle-down theory of debt.

A century before Atwood, Hungarian literary historian and critic György Lukács coined the theory of “thingification,” reminding consumers capitalism and the market are malleable. Like Karl Marx, he believed capitalism is built on avarice and greed. The mounting debts consumers face due to the perpetual manufacturing of products keeps them enslaved to titans of industry. British economist John Maynard Keynes went so far as to claim that the love of money is a mental disorder. 

Which, if true, means there are plenty of mental health problems in large banks and creditors today, as it has been shown that addiction to money is neurologically similar to cocaine addiction. The necessity of claiming debts even exceeds death, as families are often held accountable for money owed. 

Though life has changed much since those first papyrus scrolls documented scores of sheep and cattle, our relationship to debt has only become more acute. The NY Times recently reported that the culture Venmo is helping create a transactional culture insistent upon a penny:

Venmo theoretically should make these relationships less obviously transactional. Yet not only does it encourage pettiness, distilling the messiness of human experience down to a digitally precise data point, but by making it so easy to pay someone back for purchases as trifling as a coffee, the app arguably promotes the libertarian, every-user-for-himself ethos of Silicon Valley.

Part of what makes humans human is our capacity for altruism: you pick the lice from my body today, I’ll do the same tomorrow. Debt, especially in regards to usury, is an exploitation of that system. There’s nothing wrong with wanting returned what you leant, but the psychology of debt often leads to something more sinister, less humane: a sense of ownership, be it of property or people, the two at times indistinguishable, as Cersei shows. 

This feeling of entitlement destroys our humanity. Some even expect that the “universe” or society owes them something simply for being born, which is antithetical to healthy psychology. Instead of feeling gratitude for being the result of a long history of biological forces, our cortisol levels rise when a friend ignores an invoice for last week’s latte.

Television shows provide comeuppance in a way reality rarely offers, as they are written more to reflect our desires than what we actually experience. Arya’s list is getting short but she wants to collect on her debts. Daenerys is owed what she believes has been guaranteed hers thanks to bloodline. Brienne owes a debt to her deceased queen, as does Little Finger, by his own twisted and self-serving logic.

The entire series is a series of paid and failed debts, all constructions of the human mind’s need for retribution. In that quest our minds usually seek something more, a payment above what we’re owed. By that mindset the destruction and death we loathe and crave occurs. As long as we think we’re owed something we will never find the peace we think we desire. 

--

Derek is the author of Whole Motion: Training Your Brain and Body For Optimal Health. Based in Los Angeles he is working on a new book about spiritual consumerism. Stay in touch on Facebook and Twitter.

Big Think
Sponsored by Lumina Foundation

Upvote/downvote each of the videos below!

As you vote, keep in mind that we are looking for a winner with the most engaging social venture pitch - an idea you would want to invest in.

Keep reading Show less

Essential financial life skills for 21st-century Americans

Having these financial life skills can help you navigate challenging economic environments.

Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash
Personal Growth
  • Americans are swimming in increasingly higher amounts of debt, even the upper middle class.
  • For many, this burden can be alleviated by becoming familiar with some straightforward financial concepts.
  • Here's some essential financial life skills needed to ensure your economic wellbeing.
Keep reading Show less

How to flirt: 7 tips backed by science

When it comes to flirting, love meters have nothing on these researchers' findings.

(Photo from Wikimedia)
Sex & Relationships
  • Flirting is an important part of life. It can be a fun, adventurous way to meet others and develop intimate relationships.
  • Many people find flirting to be an anxiety-ridden experience, but science can help us discover principles to be more relaxed while flirting.
  • Smiling and eye contact are proven winners, while pick-up lines are a flirty fallacy.
Keep reading Show less

New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa

Experts argue the jaws of an ancient European ape reveal a key human ancestor.

Surprising Science
  • The jaw bones of an 8-million-year-old ape were discovered at Nikiti, Greece, in the '90s.
  • Researchers speculate it could be a previously unknown species and one of humanity's earliest evolutionary ancestors.
  • These fossils may change how we view the evolution of our species.

Homo sapiens have been on earth for 200,000 years — give or take a few ten-thousand-year stretches. Much of that time is shrouded in the fog of prehistory. What we do know has been pieced together by deciphering the fossil record through the principles of evolutionary theory. Yet new discoveries contain the potential to refashion that knowledge and lead scientists to new, previously unconsidered conclusions.

A set of 8-million-year-old teeth may have done just that. Researchers recently inspected the upper and lower jaw of an ancient European ape. Their conclusions suggest that humanity's forebearers may have arisen in Europe before migrating to Africa, potentially upending a scientific consensus that has stood since Darwin's day.

Rethinking humanity's origin story

The frontispiece of Thomas Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (1863) sketched by natural history artist Benjamin Waterhouse Hawkins. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

As reported in New Scientist, the 8- to 9-million-year-old hominin jaw bones were found at Nikiti, northern Greece, in the '90s. Scientists originally pegged the chompers as belonging to a member of Ouranopithecus, an genus of extinct Eurasian ape.

David Begun, an anthropologist at the University of Toronto, and his team recently reexamined the jaw bones. They argue that the original identification was incorrect. Based on the fossil's hominin-like canines and premolar roots, they identify that the ape belongs to a previously unknown proto-hominin.

The researchers hypothesize that these proto-hominins were the evolutionary ancestors of another European great ape Graecopithecus, which the same team tentatively identified as an early hominin in 2017. Graecopithecus lived in south-east Europe 7.2 million years ago. If the premise is correct, these hominins would have migrated to Africa 7 million years ago, after undergoing much of their evolutionary development in Europe.

Begun points out that south-east Europe was once occupied by the ancestors of animals like the giraffe and rhino, too. "It's widely agreed that this was the found fauna of most of what we see in Africa today," he told New Scientists. "If the antelopes and giraffes could get into Africa 7 million years ago, why not the apes?"

He recently outlined this idea at a conference of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.

It's worth noting that Begun has made similar hypotheses before. Writing for the Journal of Human Evolution in 2002, Begun and Elmar Heizmann of the Natural history Museum of Stuttgart discussed a great ape fossil found in Germany that they argued could be the ancestor (broadly speaking) of all living great apes and humans.

"Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old, some 1.5 million years older than similar species from East Africa," Begun said in a statement then. "It suggests that the great ape and human lineage first appeared in Eurasia and not Africa."

Migrating out of Africa

In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin proposed that hominins descended out of Africa. Considering the relatively few fossils available at the time, it is a testament to Darwin's astuteness that his hypothesis remains the leading theory.

Since Darwin's time, we have unearthed many more fossils and discovered new evidence in genetics. As such, our African-origin story has undergone many updates and revisions since 1871. Today, it has splintered into two theories: the "out of Africa" theory and the "multi-regional" theory.

The out of Africa theory suggests that the cradle of all humanity was Africa. Homo sapiens evolved exclusively and recently on that continent. At some point in prehistory, our ancestors migrated from Africa to Eurasia and replaced other subspecies of the genus Homo, such as Neanderthals. This is the dominant theory among scientists, and current evidence seems to support it best — though, say that in some circles and be prepared for a late-night debate that goes well past last call.

The multi-regional theory suggests that humans evolved in parallel across various regions. According to this model, the hominins Homo erectus left Africa to settle across Eurasia and (maybe) Australia. These disparate populations eventually evolved into modern humans thanks to a helping dollop of gene flow.

Of course, there are the broad strokes of very nuanced models, and we're leaving a lot of discussion out. There is, for example, a debate as to whether African Homo erectus fossils should be considered alongside Asian ones or should be labeled as a different subspecies, Homo ergaster.

Proponents of the out-of-Africa model aren't sure whether non-African humans descended from a single migration out of Africa or at least two major waves of migration followed by a lot of interbreeding.

Did we head east or south of Eden?

Not all anthropologists agree with Begun and his team's conclusions. As noted by New Scientist, it is possible that the Nikiti ape is not related to hominins at all. It may have evolved similar features independently, developing teeth to eat similar foods or chew in a similar manner as early hominins.

Ultimately, Nikiti ape alone doesn't offer enough evidence to upend the out of Africa model, which is supported by a more robust fossil record and DNA evidence. But additional evidence may be uncovered to lend further credence to Begun's hypothesis or lead us to yet unconsidered ideas about humanity's evolution.