I believe hierarchy is not detrimental at all (indeed, it is a pre-requisite) for cooperation. Humanity spent the vast majority of its history in loose bands of

I believe hierarchy is not detrimental at all (indeed, it is a pre-requisite) for cooperation. Humanity spent the vast majority of its history in loose bands of tribes with no clear inter-tribal hierarchy. Thus we spent thousands of years murdering each other on contact. You may think you are "peers" in the US / West etc, but in fact you are peers in that you've accepted an overarching higher authority in the form of the government - in particular, it's ability to enforce laws by coercion and violence. Thus instead of wondering if the other guy is about to bash your skull, we coexist in relative peace. International relations, however, lack clear hierarchy - it is a semi-structured anarchy of might-makes-right. Thus we fail to cooperate on many "tragedy of the commons" type problems, such as climate change. Chronic warfare is a defining feature of the 20th century due to this lack of hierarchy. At the micro level, try running a startup with no hierarchy. You'll find that this will fester conflict, as engineers endlessly argue with no mechanism to bring decisions efficiently and move forward. Indeed, hierarchy is emergent, and tolerated for its virtues by humans because when it does not emerge, the "company" of people dissipate and fail their mission.