4 ms·

> That we ever thought anything different is just silly. Despite having the hindsight of history, people still try to apply Darwinian theory to the social real

> That we ever thought anything different is just silly. Despite having the hindsight of history, people still try to apply Darwinian theory to the social realm at almost every chance...the rat race, climbing the social ladder, or pointy-haired managers invoking quotes from _The Art of War_ or some other general even though they haven't been in any real type of physical altercation or conflict Social insects, pollinating plants, slime molds, pack hunters, etc. It seems to me that the history of life is the history of cooperation as the default state punctuated by selective pressures shocks usually due to a loss of some type of vital resource. Even our smallest functional unit, the cell, is most likely an example of cooperation between the eukaryote and mitochondria. All of our cells cooperating with our microbiome to make us who we are I've come to the conclusion that humanity's greatest asset over other species is our unparalleled ability to cooperate in large scales societies using collective fictions like religion, justice/virtue, and the corporation to give us the motivation and structure for organization. The cognitive revolution kick started this and led to the agricultural revolution and the scientific revolution Yuval Noah Harari's A Brief History of Humankind is a fantastic read exploring this topic. He also did a MOOC on the same subject, but I don't know if it's still available.

clock_tower 10y ago
You might also be interested in Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War -- which depicts social cohesion as the measure of social health, and internal competition among like-minded members of a society as the beginning of the end. (This is confirmed repeatedly by history, especially Chinese history; I'm also reminded of how corruption and lack of internal cohesion doomed the post-Roman British kingdoms in their should've-been-a-cakewalk defense against the Anglo-Saxons.)
- FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
  Competition is likely what doomed the Roman Republic as the fall of Rome did not happen with the barbarians at the gate. I remember that the rules stated Consulship was only suppposed to last for one year, but certain people became consul 7 times in a row, another guy 3 times, then the triumvirates formed, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Roman soldiers were made up of warriors who had never seen Rome and didn't give an eff about the Republic or the Empire, etc. All too often, we are taught in school the great man, big event view of history, like Alexander was some superhuman solely responsible for the creation of his empire (No one ever brings up the biggest, the Mongol Empire).
  - clock_tower 10y ago
    Remember that the Caesars saved Rome from collapse; Octavian (Augustus Caesar) was one of the most influential and successful people in history. For the fall of the Western Empire, see The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, but even then remember that the Roman Empire continued in the east until 1453. I don't know why you condemn the Great Man theory while talking about Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan -- two of the clearest-cut examples of how the Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong.
    - rustynails 10y ago
      Genghis is also an excellent example of why the article's title is incorrect. Cooperation is far more important than friendliness. I found the article difficult to digest as it switched its focus between cooperation and friendliness while attempting to treat them as the same thing.
    - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
      Ghengis, and the Mongol Empire in general, is the most exceptional empire in history. What I mean by exception is that it broke all the rules...circumstances that doomed any other empire didn't have the same effect on them. I'm not going to discount Alexander's successes. From all sources, he was very talented, if impulsive, cavalry calendar Greece's climate and proximity to the coast made it one of the wealthiest areas in the world at the time due to exports of olive oil and wine. This allowed the free citizenry to be outfitted with the finest armor available at the time. That the Hoplites were free citizens, and not slaves, endowed them with a greater amount of morale than a number of other militaries at the time. Also, I believe his father was the one who created the phalanx formation. Put simply, he inherited the greatest fighting force at the time while being extremely well-funded. The Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong, Napoleon springs to mind as another person who had an outsized influence on history. It's just that much of the history taught in US schools is about singular individuals and dates. They don't really go into the overall conditions of the times and that history is also the result of the decisions of everyday people like you and I

clock_tower 10y ago

You might also be interested in Peter Turchin's War and Peace and War -- which depicts social cohesion as the measure of social health, and internal competition among like-minded members of a society as the beginning of the end. (This is confirmed repeatedly by history, especially Chinese history; I'm also reminded of how corruption and lack of internal cohesion doomed the post-Roman British kingdoms in their should've-been-a-cakewalk defense against the Anglo-Saxons.)

FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
Competition is likely what doomed the Roman Republic as the fall of Rome did not happen with the barbarians at the gate. I remember that the rules stated Consulship was only suppposed to last for one year, but certain people became consul 7 times in a row, another guy 3 times, then the triumvirates formed, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Roman soldiers were made up of warriors who had never seen Rome and didn't give an eff about the Republic or the Empire, etc. All too often, we are taught in school the great man, big event view of history, like Alexander was some superhuman solely responsible for the creation of his empire (No one ever brings up the biggest, the Mongol Empire).
- clock_tower 10y ago
  Remember that the Caesars saved Rome from collapse; Octavian (Augustus Caesar) was one of the most influential and successful people in history. For the fall of the Western Empire, see The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, but even then remember that the Roman Empire continued in the east until 1453. I don't know why you condemn the Great Man theory while talking about Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan -- two of the clearest-cut examples of how the Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong.
  - rustynails 10y ago
    Genghis is also an excellent example of why the article's title is incorrect. Cooperation is far more important than friendliness. I found the article difficult to digest as it switched its focus between cooperation and friendliness while attempting to treat them as the same thing.
  - FullMtlAlcoholc 10y ago
    Ghengis, and the Mongol Empire in general, is the most exceptional empire in history. What I mean by exception is that it broke all the rules...circumstances that doomed any other empire didn't have the same effect on them. I'm not going to discount Alexander's successes. From all sources, he was very talented, if impulsive, cavalry calendar Greece's climate and proximity to the coast made it one of the wealthiest areas in the world at the time due to exports of olive oil and wine. This allowed the free citizenry to be outfitted with the finest armor available at the time. That the Hoplites were free citizens, and not slaves, endowed them with a greater amount of morale than a number of other militaries at the time. Also, I believe his father was the one who created the phalanx formation. Put simply, he inherited the greatest fighting force at the time while being extremely well-funded. The Great Man theory isn't entirely wrong, Napoleon springs to mind as another person who had an outsized influence on history. It's just that much of the history taught in US schools is about singular individuals and dates. They don't really go into the overall conditions of the times and that history is also the result of the decisions of everyday people like you and I