Can archaeology shed light on future societies?

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/fifth-beginning/

Can archaeology shed light on future societies? Is using what we have learned (or theorized about) through archaeology to predict the future of our world always viable? Robert L. Kelly argues that “hunter-gatherers didn’t intend to become farmers; they were simply trying to be the best hunter-gatherers they could be. Such transformations have nothing to do with progress. The same is true today. In trying to be the most-industrialized, best-armed, most successful capitalist nation-states we can be, we should expect to become something completely new.” I am uncertain as to why Kelly claims that transformations in human societies have nothing to do with progress, or why he seems to suggest that there has only been four to five “beginnings” of society and humanity. I think this is an incorrect assumption; everything has to do with progress, and progress isn’t as simple as specific “beginnings”. It is possible that hunter-gatherers, thousands of years ago, didn’t directly intend to become farmers, but they at least recognized that they were capable of domesticating both edible plants and animals. Whether you believe that these hunter-gatherers farmed because of a need for easily accessible food sources, or because they recognized the significance of ownership of property, is entirely up for debate. Nonetheless, there was recognition of the possibility of progress or change, regardless of the reasoning behind it all. Kelly seems to take a behavioral approach, as he only considers the outcomes of human action, rather than attempting to understand imagination or intention of people.

The difference between the societies of hunter-gatherer turned farmers, and our contemporary world is that our ancestors likely did not have the means to predict or theorize about the future. They likely couldn’t guess at the results of their efforts at farming thousands of years into the future. They didn’t have an extensive recorded history of the world to refer to. But in our world today, we can predict the outcomes of human “progress” in our world. We can predict the outcomes of climate change, or the effects of an overpopulated globe, for example. Kelly argues that “we are now citizens of the world… the fifth beginning will usher in a world generally at peace, one marked by new forms of cooperation in trade, defense, education, entertainment, sports, medicine, and science.” But, if we have learned anything from archaeology or even history, it is that there has likely never been a period of peace in the world. We do have an extensive recorded history to refer to. Yes, the world is always changing, although I do think it is realistic to consider that it is human nature to be non-peaceful, selfish, and destructive.

While Kelly claims “transformations have nothing to do with progress. The same is true today,” this cannot be true if we live in an age where progress is recognized more than ever. I argue that progress and transformation are even desired today. It is true that we can refer to archaeological data to show how transformations take place, but the current world is very different from the world of 12,000 years ago. We can know what will happen if we take certain progressive steps. We are different from the earliest farming societies because we are able to plan our impacts on the world. It is also better to theorize about past societies through agency theory, by arguing that individuals can comprehend the limits of their repetitive behaviors, and break away from these limits. However, I am unsure that the various archaeological data that we have today can shed light on the future of human society simply because we have entered an age of globalization, and inevitably cultural homogenization.