My second point above contains the seeds of what you’re looking for: humans evolved culture which enables us to function in a wide variety of organizational styles across a large range of population sizes. Huge power imbalances, the most extreme being dictatorships, are not a barrier to human survival.
The fact that humans evolved in an environment without huge power imbalances is no more relevant than the fact that humans also evolved in an environment without huge temperature variations and yet are thriving on every continent save Antarctica (we could thrive even there but we have no reason to try). We are extremely good at surviving, even if we’re not always happy about it.
The fact that humans evolved in an environment without huge power imbalances is no more relevant than the fact that humans also evolved in an environment without huge temperature variations and yet are thriving on every continent save Antarctica
We did though, losing our fur gave us that ability and then we went all around the globe around 50,000 years ago.
Huge power imbalances, the most extreme being dictatorships, are not a barrier to human survival.
Okay yeah this is a direct response. Your claiming huge power imbalances help us survive. It’s not true though, as authoritarian states are far less stable.
Also, lots of inequality leads to fertility rates plummeting, now I’m not saying that’s morally good or not, but it’s direct evidence that huge power imbalance does affect survival negatively.
IMO the best example is climate change. With huge power imbalances, we are literally killing our own future.
Some power imbalance can work, the extreme just makes sure there is less resources for the majority to actually thrive, pure and simple.
No, we needed culture and the technology to make warm clothing, fire, and insulated structures to be able to survive. Losing fur did not help us survive cold climates at all.
Where’s the evidence that authoritarian states have been less stable over the last 5000 years? There have been plenty of authoritarian empires which lasted for thousands of years, far longer than western democracies have even existed. We are currently in a period of increasing popularity of authoritarianism. Liberal democracy may turn out to be a blip in an otherwise authoritarian-dominated history (over the next ten thousand years).
And I wouldn’t say liberal democracies have thrived at all, evolutionarily speaking. We’ve essentially destroyed our own desire to reproduce. That’s the opposite of thriving.
I’m talking about extreme power imbalances, and there have been multiple instances of extreme power imbalances throughout history. 5000 years ago wasn’t as extreme.
I’ve already given you an example, here is another one: conditions leading to the French Revolution.
Even though monarchies existed for a while, and also napoleon was a dictator, it was extreme poverty while the elites had extreme prosperity that lead to the fall.
Similar to Russian the revolution. There is also the huge power imbalance and wealth inequality that lead to two world wars.
My favourite is feudalism, basically all of Europe was stagnated until peasants had the leverage to ask for more.
Also, ever since the Great Recession (which made inequality more extreme), most countries in the world have become less stable.
You should study more history then because conditions leading to the French Revolution were nothing compared to the brutality of Bronze Age God-Kings. Large scale slavery, horrific forms of capital punishment even for petty crimes, high taxes, practically zero public works. As a citizen all you really got out of the government was protection from invaders who were going to steal all your food and carry off the women and children.
Or how about the Aztec Empire where the elite (Aztec citizens) would capture and ritually murder anyone they could get their hands on? The wealthy feasted and got high on drugs every night, reaching physical and spiritual ecstasy as they sacrificed one captive after another, piling their skulls on huge racks for all to see.
Feudal Peasants in Europe didn’t have the leverage to ask for more, they seized it for themselves in the wake of the Black Death. Vast swathes of countryside opened up after the depopulation caused by the plague and so the survivors claimed whatever they could get their hands on.
It’s still too early to say what will happen right now but many signs to me point to countries like the US abandoning democracy and slipping into dictatorship.
I’m going to stop responding because you don’t really talk against my point about power imbalances. You asked for examples, I gave you some, and then you responded by giving examples of horrible times in human history (you didn’t mention inequality and how it could relate to stability or why the examples relate to my point).
Also, my original comment was about supreme power being something that the majority can get back if they truly wanted to, hence why we have revolutions. That’s still true without extreme power imbalances being problematic.
You never explained how power imbalances affect human survival as a species, which is key to your original evolution argument. Revolutions and instability represent periods of unhappiness, just as brutal authoritarian systems do, but neither is much of a threat to survival of the species or evolutionary fitness in general.
Nuclear weapons do represent a real threat to species survival but still the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war is a democracy, so the jury’s still out on that.
My second point above contains the seeds of what you’re looking for: humans evolved culture which enables us to function in a wide variety of organizational styles across a large range of population sizes. Huge power imbalances, the most extreme being dictatorships, are not a barrier to human survival.
The fact that humans evolved in an environment without huge power imbalances is no more relevant than the fact that humans also evolved in an environment without huge temperature variations and yet are thriving on every continent save Antarctica (we could thrive even there but we have no reason to try). We are extremely good at surviving, even if we’re not always happy about it.
We did though, losing our fur gave us that ability and then we went all around the globe around 50,000 years ago.
Okay yeah this is a direct response. Your claiming huge power imbalances help us survive. It’s not true though, as authoritarian states are far less stable.
Also, lots of inequality leads to fertility rates plummeting, now I’m not saying that’s morally good or not, but it’s direct evidence that huge power imbalance does affect survival negatively.
IMO the best example is climate change. With huge power imbalances, we are literally killing our own future.
Some power imbalance can work, the extreme just makes sure there is less resources for the majority to actually thrive, pure and simple.
No, we needed culture and the technology to make warm clothing, fire, and insulated structures to be able to survive. Losing fur did not help us survive cold climates at all.
Where’s the evidence that authoritarian states have been less stable over the last 5000 years? There have been plenty of authoritarian empires which lasted for thousands of years, far longer than western democracies have even existed. We are currently in a period of increasing popularity of authoritarianism. Liberal democracy may turn out to be a blip in an otherwise authoritarian-dominated history (over the next ten thousand years).
And I wouldn’t say liberal democracies have thrived at all, evolutionarily speaking. We’ve essentially destroyed our own desire to reproduce. That’s the opposite of thriving.
I’m talking about extreme power imbalances, and there have been multiple instances of extreme power imbalances throughout history. 5000 years ago wasn’t as extreme.
I’ve already given you an example, here is another one: conditions leading to the French Revolution.
Even though monarchies existed for a while, and also napoleon was a dictator, it was extreme poverty while the elites had extreme prosperity that lead to the fall.
Similar to Russian the revolution. There is also the huge power imbalance and wealth inequality that lead to two world wars.
My favourite is feudalism, basically all of Europe was stagnated until peasants had the leverage to ask for more.
Also, ever since the Great Recession (which made inequality more extreme), most countries in the world have become less stable.
You should study more history then because conditions leading to the French Revolution were nothing compared to the brutality of Bronze Age God-Kings. Large scale slavery, horrific forms of capital punishment even for petty crimes, high taxes, practically zero public works. As a citizen all you really got out of the government was protection from invaders who were going to steal all your food and carry off the women and children.
Or how about the Aztec Empire where the elite (Aztec citizens) would capture and ritually murder anyone they could get their hands on? The wealthy feasted and got high on drugs every night, reaching physical and spiritual ecstasy as they sacrificed one captive after another, piling their skulls on huge racks for all to see.
Feudal Peasants in Europe didn’t have the leverage to ask for more, they seized it for themselves in the wake of the Black Death. Vast swathes of countryside opened up after the depopulation caused by the plague and so the survivors claimed whatever they could get their hands on.
It’s still too early to say what will happen right now but many signs to me point to countries like the US abandoning democracy and slipping into dictatorship.
I’m going to stop responding because you don’t really talk against my point about power imbalances. You asked for examples, I gave you some, and then you responded by giving examples of horrible times in human history (you didn’t mention inequality and how it could relate to stability or why the examples relate to my point).
Also, my original comment was about supreme power being something that the majority can get back if they truly wanted to, hence why we have revolutions. That’s still true without extreme power imbalances being problematic.
You never explained how power imbalances affect human survival as a species, which is key to your original evolution argument. Revolutions and instability represent periods of unhappiness, just as brutal authoritarian systems do, but neither is much of a threat to survival of the species or evolutionary fitness in general.
Nuclear weapons do represent a real threat to species survival but still the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war is a democracy, so the jury’s still out on that.