> * foragers are fiercely egalitarian* [citation needed] because human nature is egalitarian isn't it. > Most nations today would be richer if they had long a

> * foragers are fiercely egalitarian* [citation needed] because human nature is egalitarian isn't it. > Most nations today would be richer if they had long ago just submitted wholesale to a rich nation What you mean is, British colonialism is the only way to run a country. That sort of thinking lead to wholesale massacres, and the British loosing 4 consecutive wars in Afghanistan. This is the sort of thinking that died out in the 1930s when the indian servants poisoned their british master's tea. Of course you don't suggest that spain should have submitted to the moors, who were demonstrably more advanced in financial, artistic and technological means. Progress doesn't happen because the populous reject change, its because progress only happens through chance. The industrial revolution was sustained in england because, despite massive political change, england didn't completely purge/remodel the upper-classes. There was the same level of suffering and servitude. > Forager children aren’t told what to do; they just wander around and do what they like [citation needed] Have you ever fucking seen how foraging works? The child follows the parent and actively learns, or they die when they get lost. Do you think that the knowledge that some red berries are bad is instinctive? > While human foragers are especially averse to even a hint of domination, they are also especially eager to take “orders” Logic isn't your strong suit is it? Basically your article could be summed up as: Humans don't like being bullied or enslaved. If you change the practices of leaders, the plebs will follow.