tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post2412709135468949828..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Political Egalitarianism During the Last GlacialLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-13639337307789780492010-07-20T06:42:56.586+01:002010-07-20T06:42:56.586+01:00This is true in part, but the percentage of men wh...This is true in part, but the percentage of men who die in war goes down with each increase in social complexity. This is obvious if you think about it. If you are constantly at war, how can you grow crops? You lose a small parcel that you were hunting and gathering on, and you can move to another place. No big deal. But if you go to war and someone burns all the fields, you have a famine on your hands. So yes, you can put together a bigger army, and yes, the wars of such armies are worse, but at the same time, they are fewer and farther between -- or else civilization would collapse (as it sometimes did, locally, when rulers overextended themselves).Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-65398890139492480202010-07-12T04:53:56.525+01:002010-07-12T04:53:56.525+01:00Let's not forget the role of warfare in the ri...Let's not forget the role of warfare in the rise of oppressive hierarchy that results from the transition to agriculture. While foraging societies fight, it is generally in the form of small-scale, sporadic raiding. This is because the tribe is divided into a number of bands, and any land taken will be lost when the band moves in a few months.<br /><br /> With agriculture it becomes possible to assemble an army and take permanent possession of land. As a result warfare becomes chronic, and any society that wishes to survive must evolve a highly centralized structure of command. And once you have a permanent general, sooner or later he becomes a king. Andrew Schmookler discusses this process and its consequences in his book, The Parable of the Tribes: The Problem of Power in Social Evolution.<br /><br />-- Les BrunswickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-16404765110575422102010-07-09T06:09:21.608+01:002010-07-09T06:09:21.608+01:00The egalitarian hierarchy idea sounds like the ide...The egalitarian hierarchy idea sounds like the idea of heterarchy put forth by Frederick Turner. A heterarchy is a fluid hierarchy -- non-rigid -- meaning, members can more through it. A chimpanzee leader can lose support and,thus, his position to another chimpanzee who formed a strong coalition. The hierarchy is there, but it is fluid -- someone at the top can suddenly find himself much lower.<br /><br />I would also argue that as societies became more complex, people had to adapt to the changing life conditions. Their brains complexified in reaction to the more complex societies -- resulting in new behaviors. Now, those new behaviors were still built on the old ones, so it is still important to learn as much as possible about our original state, to be sure, but at the same time, looking back cannot tell us anything about the future, as a more complex society will result in even more complex behaviors.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.com