There Are Only Nine Meals Between Mankind and Anarchy

“There are only nine meals between mankind and anarchy.”

Understanding Society’s Fragile Foundation

This stark warning challenges our comfortable assumptions about civilization. We tend to believe social order runs deep, rooted in centuries of cultural evolution and moral development. However, this provocative statement suggests otherwise. It proposes that our civilized behavior hangs by a thread—specifically, the thread of consistent food access.

Source

The phrase captures a disturbing reality about human nature. When basic needs go unmet, even the most law-abiding citizens may abandon social norms. This isn’t merely philosophical speculation. Throughout history, food shortages have repeatedly triggered social upheaval, rioting, and complete breakdowns of order.

Tracing the Quote’s Origins

American journalist Alfred Henry Lewis first articulated this concept in 1896. Source His original observation appeared in several newspapers across the United States. Lewis crafted his message carefully, warning comfortable citizens about the thin line separating order from chaos.

Lewis argued that material security drives civic virtue more than moral character does. He observed that well-fed, properly clothed citizens enjoy the luxury of lawful behavior. Remove their food security, however, and their adherence to social rules quickly crumbles. His conclusion was blunt: starving people never make good citizens.

Why Lewis’s Formulation Resonated

The specific number nine wasn’t arbitrary. It represented roughly three days of meals—breakfast, lunch, and dinner. This timeframe proved both memorable and alarmingly short. Furthermore, it translated abstract social theory into concrete, visceral terms that anyone could understand.

Lewis repeated his formulation in 1906 during a luncheon discussion. This repetition demonstrated his commitment to the concept. Moreover, it showed he viewed this as a fundamental principle rather than casual commentary. The saying had clearly taken root in his thinking about society and human behavior.

The Saying Spreads and Evolves

By 1911, other writers had begun adopting Lewis’s phrase. Science fiction author George Allan England incorporated a version into his work. He changed “mankind” to “civilization” but kept the core message intact. Interestingly, England acknowledged he was quoting someone else, though he didn’t name Lewis specifically.

Donald Lowrie included the expression in his 1912 prison memoir. He also recognized it as borrowed wisdom without identifying the source. This pattern reveals how powerful ideas spread through culture. They gain traction, get repeated, and eventually lose clear attribution.

Variations Begin Appearing

The number itself started changing. A 1916 Brooklyn newspaper reduced it from nine meals to seven. This variant emerged during a period of rising food prices. Beef costs were climbing sharply, and eggs sold for forty to forty-five cents per dozen. The writer warned that forcing food prices upward was dangerous, since only seven meals separated people from anarchy.

This flexibility with numbers suggests something important. The precise count mattered less than the underlying principle. Whether seven, nine, or even three meals, the message remained consistent: social stability depends on full stomachs.

Depression-Era Relevance

The Great Depression gave Lewis’s warning renewed urgency. In 1932, John J. Fitzgerald of the Paterson Chamber of Commerce used the nine-meal formulation in public remarks. He added a thought experiment that made the concept more concrete and immediate.

Fitzgerald proposed imagining an impenetrable barrier around a city of ten million people. Prevent food and water delivery for just three days. According to his prediction, civilization would collapse onto the scrap heap. His elaboration expanded the concept beyond food to include water, recognizing that multiple basic needs sustain social order.

Economic Paradoxes and Social Stability

The Depression highlighted a cruel irony. Millions went hungry while food rotted in warehouses. People couldn’t buy food because they lacked jobs. However, businesses couldn’t hire them without customers who could afford to buy products. This vicious cycle demonstrated how quickly prosperity could vanish and social order could fray.

Writer Hiram Motherwell employed the saying in Harper’s Magazine in 1942. He substituted “revolution” for “anarchy,” adapting the phrase to his specific context. His use of quotation marks indicated the saying had already become part of common discourse.

World War II and Postwar Applications

The 1940s provided numerous occasions for invoking this principle. A 1943 Newsweek advertisement referenced the saying while adding an Alaskan variant. This version created a progression: one day without food produces complaints, two days leads to theft, three days results in murder. This escalation made explicit what Lewis had implied.

As Europe struggled with postwar recovery in 1946, a letter writer to the New York Herald Tribune employed a particularly dark variant. The writer suggested no one is more than nine meals away from murder. This context involved urgent appeals for European food assistance, recognizing that survival instinct represents humanity’s most basic drive.

Cold War Adaptations

The late 1940s produced yet another variation. In 1947, Dr. Leland L. Sage declared that every man is only nine meals away from Communism. This Cold War adaptation transformed the saying from a warning about social collapse into a political statement about ideological vulnerability.

Sage’s formulation suggested communist ideology appealed primarily to desperate, hungry people. Therefore, maintaining material security wasn’t just about preventing chaos. It was also about preventing the spread of communist influence. This political weaponization of the concept reflected the anxieties of its era.

Modern Interpretations and Uses

Later twentieth-century writers continued adapting the core concept. Journalist Eric Sevareid offered a 1974 variant suggesting no man was ever more than nine meals from crime or suicide. This version broadened the consequences beyond social disorder to include individual desperation and self-destruction.

Science fiction writers Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle incorporated the saying into their 1977 apocalyptic novel “Lucifer’s Hammer.” They reduced the number to two or three meals. One character observed that stopping the wheels of technology for two days would produce riots, since no place is more than two meals from revolution.

Prison Perspectives

In 1980, Charles Colson reported a prison inmate’s warning to community volunteers. The inmate said to remember you’re only nine meals away from being a criminal, particularly when watching your child’s stomach bloat from hunger. This perspective from someone who had crossed that line added powerful authenticity to the concept.

Robert L. Eddy’s 1980 book of sermon material included the observation that in big cities, watching others eat drives people to crime. He noted that each of us remains only nine meals away from stealing. These applications demonstrated the saying’s continued relevance across different contexts and communities.

Why This Warning Still Matters Today

Our modern world hasn’t eliminated this vulnerability. Indeed, our complex supply chains may have increased it. Most urban dwellers keep only a few days of food at home. Grocery stores operate on just-in-time inventory systems. Consequently, any disruption to transportation or distribution can quickly empty shelves.

Recent events have demonstrated this fragility. Natural disasters, pandemics, and other crises have triggered panic buying and temporary shortages. These episodes reveal how quickly social anxiety rises when food security feels threatened. Moreover, they show how thin the veneer of normalcy really is.

The Psychology of Hunger

Hunger affects more than just the body. Source It impacts decision-making, impulse control, and social behavior. Studies show that hungry people make more aggressive choices and show less empathy. Therefore, the nine-meals warning isn’t just about desperation. It’s also about how food deprivation fundamentally alters human psychology and behavior.

Additionally, hunger doesn’t affect everyone equally. Vulnerable populations—children, elderly people, those with health conditions—suffer more quickly. This uneven impact can create social tensions that accelerate the breakdown of order.

Lessons for Society and Policy

This warning carries important implications for public policy. Food security isn’t merely a humanitarian concern. It’s also a fundamental requirement for social stability. Governments that ignore food access do so at their peril. History repeatedly demonstrates this truth.

Furthermore, the saying highlights the importance of resilient food systems. Communities need multiple supply sources, local production capacity, and emergency reserves. Overdependence on complex, fragile supply chains creates unnecessary vulnerability.

Building More Resilient Communities

Individuals and communities can take steps to increase food security. Home food storage, community gardens, and local food networks all contribute to resilience. These measures won’t prevent all crises. However, they can extend the crucial window between disruption and desperation.

Moreover, social safety nets play a vital role. Food assistance programs, school lunch programs, and emergency food banks all help maintain social stability. They’re not just compassionate—they’re also pragmatic investments in preventing chaos.

Conclusion: Heeding the Warning

Alfred Henry Lewis’s 1896 observation remains disturbingly relevant today. His warning that only nine meals separate mankind from anarchy challenges our comfortable assumptions about civilization’s permanence. It reminds us that social order depends on meeting basic human needs.

The saying has evolved through numerous variations over more than a century. Writers have changed the numbers, substituted different consequences, and adapted it to various contexts. Nevertheless, the core insight remains constant: material security forms the foundation of social stability, and the margin for error is smaller than we’d like to believe.

This isn’t pessimism about human nature. Rather, it’s realism about human needs. People can be generous, cooperative, and law-abiding—when their basic needs are met. Remove that foundation, however, and even the most civilized behavior quickly crumbles. Understanding this reality helps us build more resilient, stable societies that can weather inevitable disruptions without descending into chaos.

Quote Me, maybe?

the quote G.O.A.T.